Finally.........A Palestinian Contribution To Mankind

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Well, this is arguable on a couple of points.

(binding international law) by 1948. UN Resolution 194, therefore, simply reaffirms international legal principles that were already binding and which required states to allow refugees to return to their places of origin,​

(COMMENT)

UN General Assembly Resolution 194(III), when it was adopted, was not an enforceable and binding Resolution.

A/RES/194(III) clearly states "Resolves" and NOT "Reaffirms:"

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
​

UNCCP OFFICIAL RECORDS: SIXTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 18 (A/1985)
While the UNCCP had some very broad powers, there were limitations. But the primary mandate remained always the same, "achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;" through a process of mutual compromise (give and take). That is, that no one can intelligently view A/RES/194(III), as a carved-in stone, strict compliance, requirements. It was always assumed that like all wars though-out history, the victors had some advantages in the negotiated outcomes.

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

50. Particularly in its mediatory role, the Commission had not only the right but the duty to make realistic give-and-take proposals on all outstanding questions--those which had been the subject of specific General Assembly recommendations as well as those which had not. In drawing up the comprehensive pattern of proposals which it had submitted to the parties, the Commission had not held itself aloof from the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. It had carefully designed the proposals as a means by which the spirit of these resolutions could be implemented in the best interests of all concerned: the Arab States, the State of Israel, the refugees and the world community.
​

There were a number of considerations that prevented the success of the UNCCP and a return to peace. The Arab Delegations made it clear that they would NOT give consideration to the "non-aggression pact" as a supplement to the Armistice Agreements. And this spread an unspoken suspicion and consequence "with regard to the repatriation of refugees." The Israel Delegation stated that two of their major considerations in the Conciliation Process were defense imperative, political and economic stability. The mere fact that the Arab Delegations were unwilling to accept the non-aggression language in the preamble made many outside observers think there was some hidden future agenda (and as it turned out, there was). The Arab Delegation saw no need to go beyond the Armistice Agreement, the Conciliation language something they considered unnecessary. This made the yet undefined parameters of a return of Arab refugees much more difficult.

In the 65 years since that Final Report by the UNCCP, there were the 1956 conflict, the 1967 conflict and the 1973 conflict. The mandate to achieve some sort of lasting peace did not materialize. Only Egypt and Jordan have advanced to a return to peace and normalization. Lebanon and Syria have not even formerly entered into Peace Talks; and the Palestinians have not been able to advance beyond the Oslo Accord in any meaningful way. Even after the 2005 Withdrawal, the Palestinians returned to open hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so where does that negate the Palestinian's RoR?

Here

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,


If you read what it says and understand what it means. It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay

P F Tinmore, et al,

RoR is not a binding demand, as the UNCCP enunciated.

No law needed to be changed. The UDHR and the A/RES/194 are not laws. And none of the other citations may be implemented if they do not achieve the return of peace in Palestine.

OK, so where does that negate the Palestinian's RoR?

(COMMENT)

Thus not being a demand (non-binding) but a negotiated outcome from the efforts of the UNCCP, the inability of the UNCCP to strike a mutual agreement in the

" 56. The refusal of the Arab States to subscribe to the undertakings requested by the Conciliation Commission and the very terms of the declaration which they wished to substitute indicated, in the view of the delegation of Israel, that they had no intention of promoting the achievement of peace but that, on the contrary, their intention was to continue all activities which a war entailed, short of the use of military force."

57. ... ... ... The Commission stated that it should be clearly understood that neither the form nor the substance of the declaration of either party could alter the obligations assumed by the parties in accordance either with the provisions of the Armistice Agreements or with the terms of the United Nations Charter. It was equally apparent that such declarations could not alter the import of the resolutions of the Security Council.
​

The UNCCP remarked in conclusion that:

"81. This pattern of proposals comprised practical arrangements for a solution of the refugee question, and a method of revising or amending the Armistice Agreements concluded between Israel and her neighbours with a view to promoting the return of peace in Palestine.

82. In linking those two issues together in a comprehensive pattern of proposals the Commission took account of two factors:

(a) that the Armistice Agreements, although of a military character, were designed as a means of transition from war to peace and provided for procedures by which that aim could be attained; and

(b) that positive progress in the transition from war to peace in Palestine is impossible if the refugee problem remains unsolved."
​

The BIG Catch 22 here in the discussions is that the UNCCP understood that Paragraph 11 of A/RES/194(III) (RoR) could not be implemented.

NOTHING negates the idea of RoR, what prevents it from implementation is that the conditions then were not set:

• No peace in the RoR
• No security with the RoR

84. In particular, the Government of Israel is not prepared to implement the part of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 which resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.

85. The Arab Governments, on the other hand, are not prepared fully to implement paragraph 5 of the said resolution, which calls for the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them and Israel. The Arab Governments in their contacts with the Commission have evinced no readiness to arrive at such a peace settlement with the Government of Israel.
​

Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III) 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Meaning:
• wishing to return to their homes
• live at peace with their neighbors
​

In 1948, the Arab Delegation stipulated that they would never accept a Jewish National Home in Arab Territory. And in 1951, (the UNCCP Para 56 above) the Arab "intention was to continue all activities which a war entailed, short of the use of military force." The conditions for RoR were not met then, and deteriorated significant over time to the present date. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab-Palestinians (refugees) or Lebanon or Syria will reach an accommodation.

Most Respectfully,
R

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,​

Indeed, that is the key.

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.”

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf​

This outpouring of islamonazi propaganda sums it up perfectly.

Did you read the remit of the site


BADIL-Briefs
aim to support the Palestinian-Arab and internatio
nal debate
about strategies for promotion of Palestinian refug
ees' right of return,
restitution, and compensation in the framework of a
just and durable solution
of the Palestinian/Arab - Israeli conflict.


Very biased against the Jews and their rights under international law, which is why you used it

They want to follow the law.

Israel hates law.

And you can prove this from a source other than your usual islamionazi propaganda outlets.

What I have seen is Israel wants the law to act equally for everyone, while you islamonazi propagandists dont want any laws to workin the Jews favour. If you had your way every Jew under 100 years old would be murdered to stop them living in peace.

What laws do the arab muslims accept and obey then concerning the land of palestine ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Well, this is arguable on a couple of points.

(COMMENT)

UN General Assembly Resolution 194(III), when it was adopted, was not an enforceable and binding Resolution.

A/RES/194(III) clearly states "Resolves" and NOT "Reaffirms:"

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
​

UNCCP OFFICIAL RECORDS: SIXTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 18 (A/1985)
While the UNCCP had some very broad powers, there were limitations. But the primary mandate remained always the same, "achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;" through a process of mutual compromise (give and take). That is, that no one can intelligently view A/RES/194(III), as a carved-in stone, strict compliance, requirements. It was always assumed that like all wars though-out history, the victors had some advantages in the negotiated outcomes.

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

50. Particularly in its mediatory role, the Commission had not only the right but the duty to make realistic give-and-take proposals on all outstanding questions--those which had been the subject of specific General Assembly recommendations as well as those which had not. In drawing up the comprehensive pattern of proposals which it had submitted to the parties, the Commission had not held itself aloof from the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. It had carefully designed the proposals as a means by which the spirit of these resolutions could be implemented in the best interests of all concerned: the Arab States, the State of Israel, the refugees and the world community.
​

There were a number of considerations that prevented the success of the UNCCP and a return to peace. The Arab Delegations made it clear that they would NOT give consideration to the "non-aggression pact" as a supplement to the Armistice Agreements. And this spread an unspoken suspicion and consequence "with regard to the repatriation of refugees." The Israel Delegation stated that two of their major considerations in the Conciliation Process were defense imperative, political and economic stability. The mere fact that the Arab Delegations were unwilling to accept the non-aggression language in the preamble made many outside observers think there was some hidden future agenda (and as it turned out, there was). The Arab Delegation saw no need to go beyond the Armistice Agreement, the Conciliation language something they considered unnecessary. This made the yet undefined parameters of a return of Arab refugees much more difficult.

In the 65 years since that Final Report by the UNCCP, there were the 1956 conflict, the 1967 conflict and the 1973 conflict. The mandate to achieve some sort of lasting peace did not materialize. Only Egypt and Jordan have advanced to a return to peace and normalization. Lebanon and Syria have not even formerly entered into Peace Talks; and the Palestinians have not been able to advance beyond the Oslo Accord in any meaningful way. Even after the 2005 Withdrawal, the Palestinians returned to open hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so where does that negate the Palestinian's RoR?

Here

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,


If you read what it says and understand what it means. It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay

When was that determined.

Link?

Read the words in the UN resolution were it says that, the link is posted if you bother to look

You didn't understand the question. Try again.

I do understand the question and the link was given by Rocor, it is you that refuses to understand the answers when they prove you wrong

 

[Phoenall]

OK, so where does that negate the Palestinian's RoR?

Here

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,


If you read what it says and understand what it means. It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay

P F Tinmore, et al,

RoR is not a binding demand, as the UNCCP enunciated.

No law needed to be changed. The UDHR and the A/RES/194 are not laws. And none of the other citations may be implemented if they do not achieve the return of peace in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Thus not being a demand (non-binding) but a negotiated outcome from the efforts of the UNCCP, the inability of the UNCCP to strike a mutual agreement in the

" 56. The refusal of the Arab States to subscribe to the undertakings requested by the Conciliation Commission and the very terms of the declaration which they wished to substitute indicated, in the view of the delegation of Israel, that they had no intention of promoting the achievement of peace but that, on the contrary, their intention was to continue all activities which a war entailed, short of the use of military force."

57. ... ... ... The Commission stated that it should be clearly understood that neither the form nor the substance of the declaration of either party could alter the obligations assumed by the parties in accordance either with the provisions of the Armistice Agreements or with the terms of the United Nations Charter. It was equally apparent that such declarations could not alter the import of the resolutions of the Security Council.
​

The UNCCP remarked in conclusion that:

"81. This pattern of proposals comprised practical arrangements for a solution of the refugee question, and a method of revising or amending the Armistice Agreements concluded between Israel and her neighbours with a view to promoting the return of peace in Palestine.

82. In linking those two issues together in a comprehensive pattern of proposals the Commission took account of two factors:

(a) that the Armistice Agreements, although of a military character, were designed as a means of transition from war to peace and provided for procedures by which that aim could be attained; and

(b) that positive progress in the transition from war to peace in Palestine is impossible if the refugee problem remains unsolved."
​

The BIG Catch 22 here in the discussions is that the UNCCP understood that Paragraph 11 of A/RES/194(III) (RoR) could not be implemented.

NOTHING negates the idea of RoR, what prevents it from implementation is that the conditions then were not set:

• No peace in the RoR
• No security with the RoR

84. In particular, the Government of Israel is not prepared to implement the part of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 which resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.

85. The Arab Governments, on the other hand, are not prepared fully to implement paragraph 5 of the said resolution, which calls for the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them and Israel. The Arab Governments in their contacts with the Commission have evinced no readiness to arrive at such a peace settlement with the Government of Israel.
​

Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III) 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Meaning:
• wishing to return to their homes
• live at peace with their neighbors
​

In 1948, the Arab Delegation stipulated that they would never accept a Jewish National Home in Arab Territory. And in 1951, (the UNCCP Para 56 above) the Arab "intention was to continue all activities which a war entailed, short of the use of military force." The conditions for RoR were not met then, and deteriorated significant over time to the present date. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab-Palestinians (refugees) or Lebanon or Syria will reach an accommodation.

Most Respectfully,
R

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,​

Indeed, that is the key.

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.”

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf​

This outpouring of islamonazi propaganda sums it up perfectly.

Did you read the remit of the site


BADIL-Briefs
aim to support the Palestinian-Arab and internatio
nal debate
about strategies for promotion of Palestinian refug
ees' right of return,
restitution, and compensation in the framework of a
just and durable solution
of the Palestinian/Arab - Israeli conflict.


Very biased against the Jews and their rights under international law, which is why you used it

They want to follow the law.

Israel hates law.

Link?

How many do you want?

how about 3 from non islamonazi propaganda sites that have different sources

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, it is not an unconditional "right."

Even with the Resolution --- it stipulates two conditions; which must be credibly TRUE simultaneously.

SOURCE: Your source "BADIL" is a Resource Center, exclusively an advocate for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. All its paper take the side of the Palestinian. The sources I quoted are archive official documents by the actual activities attempting to craft a solution for the return of peace in the region; neither exclusively Israeli or Palestinian advocates.

Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III) 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Meaning:
• wishing to return to their homes
• live at peace with their neighbors
​

Indeed, that is the key.

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.”

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf​

(COMMENT)

The right to make a free choice is NOT the same thing as guarantee that choice will be acceptable to the either the Israelis or the UNCCP; a point that was distinctly and was made very VERY clear in Posting #149 (supra).

The individual "right to choose" (Palestinian option) is not a case of forced acceptance (a fait accompli to the Israeli).

The KEY is to understand the KEY.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The link was already provided.

If you read what it says and understand what it means. It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay

When was that determined.

Link?

(COMMENT)

All of this was provided to you in the previous posting.

22. In the Chairman's statement it was further pointed out that no constructive progress towards a solution of existing problems would be possible unless all the parties to the dispute, at the outset of the discussions, expressed their determination to respect each other's right to security and freedom from attack, to refrain from warlike or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

And Annex B, Paragraph 5
Chairman of the ConciliationCommission to the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and to the delegation of Israel

The Conciliation Commission is aware of the disparity between the formulations suggested by the parties. However, the Commission considers that the parties, by offering these formulations, have contributed to the creation of a favourable atmosphere for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, it is not an unconditional "right."

Even with the Resolution --- it stipulates two conditions; which must be credibly TRUE simultaneously.

SOURCE: Your source "BADIL" is a Resource Center, exclusively an advocate for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. All its paper take the side of the Palestinian. The sources I quoted are archive official documents by the actual activities attempting to craft a solution for the return of peace in the region; neither exclusively Israeli or Palestinian advocates.

Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III) 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Meaning:
• wishing to return to their homes
• live at peace with their neighbors
​

Indeed, that is the key.

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.”

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf​

(COMMENT)

The right to make a free choice is NOT the same thing as guarantee that choice will be acceptable to the either the Israelis or the UNCCP; a point that was distinctly and was made very VERY clear in Posting #149 (supra).

The individual "right to choose" (Palestinian option) is not a case of forced acceptance (a fait accompli to the Israeli).

The KEY is to understand the KEY.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the right to return.

Israel has no right to block that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The link was already provided.

If you read what it says and understand what it means. It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay

When was that determined.

Link?

(COMMENT)

All of this was provided to you in the previous posting.

22. In the Chairman's statement it was further pointed out that no constructive progress towards a solution of existing problems would be possible unless all the parties to the dispute, at the outset of the discussions, expressed their determination to respect each other's right to security and freedom from attack, to refrain from warlike or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

And Annex B, Paragraph 5
Chairman of the ConciliationCommission to the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and to the delegation of Israel

The Conciliation Commission is aware of the disparity between the formulations suggested by the parties. However, the Commission considers that the parties, by offering these formulations, have contributed to the creation of a favourable atmosphere for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine

for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.​

Now who were the only people who were not at the table?

That is why there is BDS. The Palestinians are tired of foreigners always pushing them around.

Note: It does not say peace in Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, it is not an unconditional "right."

Even with the Resolution --- it stipulates two conditions; which must be credibly TRUE simultaneously.

SOURCE: Your source "BADIL" is a Resource Center, exclusively an advocate for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. All its paper take the side of the Palestinian. The sources I quoted are archive official documents by the actual activities attempting to craft a solution for the return of peace in the region; neither exclusively Israeli or Palestinian advocates.

Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III) 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Meaning:
• wishing to return to their homes
• live at peace with their neighbors
​

Indeed, that is the key.

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected." Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.”

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf​

(COMMENT)

The right to make a free choice is NOT the same thing as guarantee that choice will be acceptable to the either the Israelis or the UNCCP; a point that was distinctly and was made very VERY clear in Posting #149 (supra).

The individual "right to choose" (Palestinian option) is not a case of forced acceptance (a fait accompli to the Israeli).

The KEY is to understand the KEY.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the right to return.

Israel has no right to block that.

The produce the definitive link that gives the date of implementation of the International law. As the UN, ICC and ICJ have all said there is no legal right of return. If there was Mecca would be full of Jews and there would not be any problems in the M.E.as the arab league forces would be protecting the Jews round the clock.



Right of return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a rebuttal to UNGA resolution 194 being used in support, opponents note that General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding and usually have no force as international law.

The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship





Very simple language used to explain to even the most dumb of people, there is no legal right of return, and you cant find any enactment of that.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The link was already provided.

If you read what it says and understand what it means. It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay

When was that determined.

Link?

(COMMENT)

All of this was provided to you in the previous posting.

22. In the Chairman's statement it was further pointed out that no constructive progress towards a solution of existing problems would be possible unless all the parties to the dispute, at the outset of the discussions, expressed their determination to respect each other's right to security and freedom from attack, to refrain from warlike or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

And Annex B, Paragraph 5
Chairman of the ConciliationCommission to the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and to the delegation of Israel

The Conciliation Commission is aware of the disparity between the formulations suggested by the parties. However, the Commission considers that the parties, by offering these formulations, have contributed to the creation of a favourable atmosphere for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine

for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.​

Now who were the only people who were not at the table?

That is why there is BDS. The Palestinians are tired of foreigners always pushing them around.

Note: It does not say peace in Israel.

And why did they refuse to be present, making your whinge just that the whinge of a petulant child who cant get their own way. From 1917 the arab muslims have refused to take part in any meetings to reduce the violence in the M.E. because they prefer bloodshed and warfare

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "RoR" is not unconditional. Anything that leads to additional conflict, or erupt into another Civil War is inconsistent with the purpose of securing a permanent peace.

No, it is not an unconditional "right."

Meaning:
• wishing to return to their homes
• live at peace with their neighbors
​

The Palestinians have the right to return.

Israel has no right to block that.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians cannot meet the conditions for the "RoR" to even be considered.

Just because an Arab Palestinian says they have a certain "right" does not mean they know the criteria for implementation. The UNCCP came to that conclusion, just as the UNPC before it and the Mandatory before that.

The Israelis has fought war after war over these issues. As long as the RoR represents a threat to the security and safety of the Jewish State of Israel and the citizenry, the RoR will be disallowed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab-Palestinians have the right to think this way, and hold this political position. It does not mean that the Jewish State of Israel must surrender any military, political or diplomatic position it currently holds.

• or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

• as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine

• for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.​

Now who were the only people who were not at the table?

That is why there is BDS. The Palestinians are tired of foreigners always pushing them around.

Note: It does not say peace in Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League established the new 1945 Arab Higher Committee (AHC) to speak on behalf of all Arabs not otherwise having representation of certain issues. Of course, anything having to do with the Armistice Arrangements was unique to specific Arab States (Palestine not being a state, thus having no Armistice Arrangement).

The BDS is an NGO. It cannot enter negotiations as it is not competent.

This idea of the Arab-Palestinians being: "tired of foreigners always pushing them around" dwindles away a little bit each day. The State of Israel is composed of (CIA Factbook Estimate 2013):

• Jewish 75% of which:

• Israel-born 74.4%,
• Europe/America/Oceania-born 17.4%,
• Africa-born 5.1%, Asia-born 3.1%),
​

• Non-Jewish 25% (mostly Arab)
​

If you are arguing that the International Law and the UNCCP Guidance and Mandate did not intend for the UNCCP to include Israel in its mandate to form a permanent peace, then there is just no further basis on which to discuss the topic. This is, in effect, a represents the further justification for Arab-Palestinian containment.

The Jewish State of Israel is not going to permit the repatriation of a people or culture into its sovereignty if, at the outset, a continuation of the conflict will continue; or that the peace and security is placed in jeopardy.

The status quo is preferable to the security threat posed by allowing Arab-Palestinians that support the position that: "It does not say peace in Israel."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And they forget that palestine included Jordan, part of Syria, Saudi, Egypt and Lebanon prior to 1924, so you dont see them claiming all that land as the palestinian state because they know their fellow muslims will just destroy them.

 

[Mindful]

Here's a nice Palestinian "contribution".

Palestinian activist says that Jews have “at best, animal rights”

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right.​

That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.

 

[Mindful]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right.​

That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.

You mean the Jews.


Palestinian Jew is the term used to refer to a Jewish inhabitant of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Israel, the "Land of Israel") prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right.​

That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.

So which river, which sea, how far north and how far south. The Israelis could say the same thing and mean the North sea, the river Ganges, North pole and south pole. Like everything the arab muslims say it is meaningless and can be taken to mean anything.



And what international oe International treaty gives them the right to this land after they signed it away in 1917 ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right.​

That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.

You mean the Jews.


Palestinian Jew is the term used to refer to a Jewish inhabitant of Palestine (known in Hebrew as Eretz Israel, the "Land of Israel") prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

There were Palestinian Jews but they were not the ones who declared independence. The native Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

 

[Mindful]

MJB12741, et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft." It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations. The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy. And as everyone knows, the "military option" (as it is sometime called) is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes (on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results), based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us. While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know (Except for the Simple Minded) that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.

(COMMENT)

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians) ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target. As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes. Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine. .

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values. As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, --- attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention. Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures.

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions.

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right.​

That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.

So which river, which sea, how far north and how far south. The Israelis could say the same thing and mean the North sea, the river Ganges, North pole and south pole. Like everything the arab muslims say it is meaningless and can be taken to mean anything.

It's like Groundhog Day with him