I will not Bow!

[docmauser1]

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

Why self-defence and why isn't it hostile, if palistanians never lost anything?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I'm not selling anything. I'm making a distinction.

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

(COMMENT)

I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States (non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians), and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens (hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen).

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law. When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

I make a distinction. I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile." I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I'm not selling anything. I'm making a distinction.

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

(COMMENT)

I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States (non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians), and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens (hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen).

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law. When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

I make a distinction. I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile." I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.

Most Respectfully,
R

including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I'm not selling anything. I'm making a distinction.

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

(COMMENT)

I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States (non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians), and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens (hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen).

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law. When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

I make a distinction. I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile." I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.

Most Respectfully,
R

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

The armistice lines like in Gaza, for example, are lines that Israeli and Egyptian forces cannot cross. These lines run through Palestine and there are Palestinians on both sides. I don't see how Palestinians can violate these lines.

 

[docmauser1]

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

How so, if palistanians don't have no land and no borders?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I necessarily agree with this.

For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 37)

(COMMENT)

Just as there are various Arab Palestinian factions that have diverse opinions, so it is with the Jewish Community within Israel.

David Ben-Gurion did not accept the total strategy of the Partition Plan; that is obvious. But as a higher level official, he new he had to sacrifice much of what he personally believed to achieve the first steps towards attaining a Jewish National Home through the process of statehood. And so he had to compromise. But, conversely, he totally understood what Isa Nakhleh (Representative of the Arab Higher Committee) was saying in his 6 February 1948 Letter to the Secretary-General; which implied that if Israel were to become independent and sovereign THEN --->:

In its statement to the Ad Hoc Committee on the 29th of September, our Delegation left no doubt on the Arab reactions: “The Arabs of Palestine are, therefore, solidly determined to oppose, with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provides for the dissection, segregation or partition of their tiny Country, or that gives to a minority, on the ground of creed, special and preferential rights or status. They will oppose such schemes, with the same zeal and with the same sacrifice that any other people would do under the same circumstances. We are alive to the fact that if they so desire, big powers could crush, by brute force, such opposition. But this realisation will not deter us from drenching the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood in the lawful defense of all and every inch of it.”

SOURCE: A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948

It is important to note that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were the ones that conveyed the idea of "use of force" and "all means necessary" to David Ben-Gurion even before the Resolution 181(II) was passed (September 1947); not the other way around. David Ben-Gurion, YES, clearly understood that the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution" because that is what the HoAP told him and the Secretary-General. The HoAP were going to start a fight. (And they did just that! Not just once, but several times and they haven't stopped yet.)

Ilan Pappé's book is true to an extent, but holds a pro-Palestinian (anti-Israel Government) flavor that most of us who have been to college know and recognize. I encourage everyone to read it, but with a grain of salt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.

Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense! That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.

including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

(COMMENT)

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known. You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

Why self-defence and why isn't it hostile, if palistanians never lost anything?

IT IS A LIE BY TINMORE TO TWIST THE WORDS ROUND TO HIS RACIST POV the term used is HoAP Hostile Arab Palestinian no mention of self defence in the post at all.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I necessarily agree with this.


(COMMENT)

Just as there are various Arab Palestinian factions that have diverse opinions, so it is with the Jewish Community within Israel.

David Ben-Gurion did not accept the total strategy of the Partition Plan; that is obvious. But as a higher level official, he new he had to sacrifice much of what he personally believed to achieve the first steps towards attaining a Jewish National Home through the process of statehood. And so he had to compromise. But, conversely, he totally understood what Isa Nakhleh (Representative of the Arab Higher Committee) was saying in his 6 February 1948 Letter to the Secretary-General; which implied that if Israel were to become independent and sovereign THEN --->:



It is important to note that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were the ones that conveyed the idea of "use of force" and "all means necessary" to David Ben-Gurion even before the Resolution 181(II) was passed (September 1947); not the other way around. David Ben-Gurion, YES, clearly understood that the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution" because that is what the HoAP told him and the Secretary-General. The HoAP were going to start a fight. (And they did just that! Not just once, but several times and they haven't stopped yet.)

Ilan Pappé's book is true to an extent, but holds a pro-Palestinian (anti-Israel Government) flavor that most of us who have been to college know and recognize. I encourage everyone to read it, but with a grain of salt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.

Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists

They refused the offer of a nation...

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I'm not selling anything. I'm making a distinction.

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

(COMMENT)

I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States (non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians), and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens (hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen).

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law. When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

I make a distinction. I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile." I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.

Most Respectfully,
R

including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

MUNICH OLYMPICS, JORDAN, LEBANON, SYRIA, EGYPT all places were HoAP have committed terrorism. All outside of your imaginary borders.

WHY DO YOU LIE

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense! That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.

including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

(COMMENT)

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known. You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation

Israel does not recognize armistice lines as borders and crosses them at will.

Why should the Palestinians have to live by a different standard?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense! That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.

including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

(COMMENT)

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known. You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means

What peaceful means would you suggest?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I'm not selling anything. I'm making a distinction.

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

(COMMENT)

I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States (non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians), and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens (hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen).

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law. When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

I make a distinction. I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile." I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.

Most Respectfully,
R

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

The armistice lines like in Gaza, for example, are lines that Israeli and Egyptian forces cannot cross. These lines run through Palestine and there are Palestinians on both sides. I don't see how Palestinians can violate these lines.

Then you should be seeing a psychologist and get treated for stupidity. The lines apply to everyone that lives in the area, and this means all Palestinians. Now here is the rub the Jews are Palestinians as well, or don't you know that. They meet the criteria that you and the HoAP set for the arab muslims. All they need to do is accept a just peace and they will find they are one of the richest nations on the planet, but while they engage in terrorism they will be reviled and hated by all decent human beings.


The lines separate the HoAP from the rest of society and the SOVERIEGN NATION OF ISRAEL they apply to the HoAP just as much as they do to the Israelis and they are in breach of International Law if they transgress the lines. When they do they face a return of fire and the defenders can then cross the line to mete out punishment to the terrorists.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.

Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists

They refused the offer of a nation...

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.

Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.

Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists

They refused the offer of a nation...

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

They said it is writing to the U.N. that they would never agree to the partition plan and that they would destroy Israel and force the Jews back into the sea. So the Jews did the only thing they could and they declared themselves a nation. Only 22 states voted against them being accepted as a Soveriegn nation recognised by the U.N. This in itself over rules your fantasy of Palestine being this massive nation in the M.E with international borders in Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon, and poor Jordan is no longer there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.

Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are a number of different ways.

Nonsense! That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.

The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.

(COMMENT)

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known. You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" (or just Arab Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means

What peaceful means would you suggest?

(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, the Palestinians could ask the UN to bring the UN Palestine Commission out of adjournment. It actually has the power to adjust borders dating back to 1948, pursuant to implementation; and it just so happens that the State of Palestine invoked the resolution in its Declaration of Independence. Oh , yeah - I forgot. The HoAP doesn't recognized Resolution 181(II) or anything derived there from.

Or, there is this process called "Settlement of Disputes" where the United Nations requires all Members of the Organization to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

Or, Treaty Negotiations, and/or Arbitration through the ICJ which decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

Or the process set-out by UN Resolution A/RES/34/102 -- Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States.

(And there are more!)

There are any number of ways to settle disputes by peaceful means. But again, there must be an element of good faith.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)



I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

SAME THING as they did not hold title to the land, but Britain did

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)



I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

By what right did they usurp the right of self determination of the jewish people living in the M.E . By what right did they usurp the right to a homeland for the Jewish people living in the M.E. By what right did they usurp the right to defensible borders of the Jewish homeland in the M.E.

Or are you that much of a JEW HATER that you want to see the Jews wiped out completely.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again with the subterfuge.

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)

I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city. It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors. They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.

More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly. To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”.

The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.

SOURCE: A/532 10 April 1948

There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly." We call them HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R