Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Challenger]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

The only people who ever massacred Palesinians were Zionist Israel and it's allies and proxies.

 

[Challenger]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

Only in your fantasy world of planet Phoney. There are less than 600 Muslims, mainly from Pakistan where you live, an area that's 99% WASP, which probably explains why you are a card carrying fascist. I doubt you've ever seen a Muslim close up, unless it's the person behind the counter at your corner shop when you buy your beer and ciggies.

 

[Challenger]

I wonder if anyone else can see the irony in Phoney's rant. "Europe will rise up against the Muslim invasion and send them back to their own countries, yada, yada, yada" So it's fine for "Europe" to do that to Muslim refugees, that Europe helped engineer, but not for Palestinians to rise up against the European Jewish Zionists who invaded Palestine in order to colonise it. Your hypocracy is showing Phoney...

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

No, I suppose not. We often disagree.

It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?

(COMMENT)

As to derailing and diverting the thread, I was directly responding to your Post #410 concerning the Palestinian "right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them."

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me at all, in the Proper Context. You are disagreeing with the Mandatory who expressed the opinion and their understanding in 1939. We often try to apply 21st Century interpretations on pre-WWII decisions; which leads to an incorrect understanding of the actions taken. In this case, you are (and of course you are free to do this) ignoring the 1939 intentions and misinterpreting the actions.

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

This was the interpretation expressed by Right Honorable Sir Earl Peel (Chairman) and the Palestine Royal Commission (AKA Peel Commission Report).

Finally, the Jihadist Tactics, especially that with regard to HAMAS, are a bit complex. (I recommend you read the Naval Postgraduate School,Center for Contemporary Conflict Report titled Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics as a start.) Understanding that HAMAS, at the organizational level, "does not conceal its intentions or methodology for exercising control over the Palestinian population." (This is very important, the intention is to control the Palestinian people.) Jihadist tactics evolve with time relative to the goals and objectives.

• In the beginning, Hamas (1988 thru early 1990's) slowly creates a society that is ripe to adopt the suicide tactics of that similar to Hezbollah (Lebanon).
• Hamas begins the early process of galvanizing a segment of the Palestinian people to never accept peace, and only recognize PLO negotiations and settlements as temporary.
• Hamas leaders study Arab modern history, carefully selecting dates to energize resistance and acts of violence in Gaza.
• Isolating and attacking "soft targets."
• Launching attacks from large stand-off areas and within "densely populated areas."

HAMAS, as anti-Israeli Jihadist, fired thousands of Qassam rockets from Gaza into southern Israeli cities and villages, vowing to turn them into "ghost town." HAMAS activities embedded their infrastructure inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings – thereby taking cover behind “human shields.”

Jihadists change tactics to target Egypt Achilles heel: analysts
By Tony Gamal-Gabriel June 10, 2015
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

No, I suppose not. We often disagree.

It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?

(COMMENT)

As to derailing and diverting the thread, I was directly responding to your Post #410 concerning the Palestinian "right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them."

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me at all, in the Proper Context. You are disagreeing with the Mandatory who expressed the opinion and their understanding in 1939. We often try to apply 21st Century interpretations on pre-WWII decisions; which leads to an incorrect understanding of the actions taken. In this case, you are (and of course you are free to do this) ignoring the 1939 intentions and misinterpreting the actions.

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

This was the interpretation expressed by Right Honorable Sir Earl Peel (Chairman) and the Palestine Royal Commission (AKA Peel Commission Report).

Finally, the Jihadist Tactics, especially that with regard to HAMAS, are a bit complex. (I recommend you read the Naval Postgraduate School,Center for Contemporary Conflict Report titled Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics as a start.) Understanding that HAMAS, at the organizational level, "does not conceal its intentions or methodology for exercising control over the Palestinian population." (This is very important, the intention is to control the Palestinian people.) Jihadist tactics evolve with time relative to the goals and objectives.

• In the beginning, Hamas (1988 thru early 1990's) slowly creates a society that is ripe to adopt the suicide tactics of that similar to Hezbollah (Lebanon).
• Hamas begins the early process of galvanizing a segment of the Palestinian people to never accept peace, and only recognize PLO negotiations and settlements as temporary.
• Hamas leaders study Arab modern history, carefully selecting dates to energize resistance and acts of violence in Gaza.
• Isolating and attacking "soft targets."
• Launching attacks from large stand-off areas and within "densely populated areas."

HAMAS, as anti-Israeli Jihadist, fired thousands of Qassam rockets from Gaza into southern Israeli cities and villages, vowing to turn them into "ghost town." HAMAS activities embedded their infrastructure inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings – thereby taking cover behind “human shields.”

Jihadists change tactics to target Egypt Achilles heel: analysts
By Tony Gamal-Gabriel June 10, 2015
​

Most Respectfully,
R

So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

Only in your fantasy world of planet Phoney. There are less than 600 Muslims, mainly from Pakistan where you live, an area that's 99% WASP, which probably explains why you are a card carrying fascist. I doubt you've ever seen a Muslim close up, unless it's the person behind the counter at your corner shop when you buy your beer and ciggies.

Phoney is hypocrite, sound like he confused too.

 

[Rehmani]

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

The only people who ever massacred Palesinians were Zionist Israel and it's allies and proxies.

Zionist are actually jews and jews are very good under cove or use other name instead.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

But jew already have option and always destroy their option for example they destroy their first option when they were living in Pharaoh kingdome and then they destroy their second option when they were living in Roman kingdom, on and on and now they are living happily around the world with out any problem especially in USA but choose Land Of Arab instead.

 

[Rehmani]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

Correct and this meant that the Jews were the soveriegns of the Jewish section of Palestine. So why do you oppose this simple action yet defend and support the arab muslims taking land that was not theirs ?

Similarly why don't you understand too that roman kicked out jew from holly land and Arab muslim welcome back to jew during Ottoman Empire instead jew respect arab muslim they pushed them into camps and invade their land and home now you tell me that do you trust cheater who cheat you like jew are cheating to Arab msulim who accommodate jew in holy land.

This is a common misconception, the Romans destroyed Herod's temple and forbade the Jerusalem Cult (Temple Judaism) to practice there. The Jewish religion was untouched elsewhere in Palestine and throughout the Roman Empire (unless they provoked the Romans in some way). The Jewish inhabitants of Palestine gradually left to join other Jewish communities in Mesopotamia, North Africa or Europe or stayed and converted to Islam.

You are quite correct that those who chose to remain or chose to return later were generally welcomed by the Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire, most of them however, chose to settle in the Balkans or Anatolia, very few chose to settle in Palestine.

Challenger thanks and please tell to roudy phoney and others as well about the facts that it was msulim who accommodate jews in holy land and now I will say those muslim were wrong and roman were right. And one more thing when Jew kicked out by the Roman they left for Persia Empire and current Iran.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Please see Montelatici post or may be you already have that I think he explain well.

Monte's posts are wonderful. So little left for us to laugh at these days while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.

This world base on logic and Monte's making sense to me, it doesn't matter who Monte's is.

 

[MJB12741]

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

The only people who ever massacred Palesinians were Zionist Israel and it's allies and proxies.

Well then, damn those Zionists for giving the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians Black September. Don't you agree?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I was answering a few different issues in one posting.

• His (Challenger's) disagreement with my assertion.
• Derailing and diverting the thread.
• His (Challenger's) discussion on interpretations of international law.
​

Then, he (Challenger) included in his response the question: what you mean by "jihadist tactics?"

So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

So, actually I did not directly addressed these questions. Not a question on the right to self-defense.

On the issue of the right to self-defense, one party cannot use their (supposed) right to "any and all means" and expect it to negate or override an actual "right to self-defense;" as outlined in Posting #426.

The Palestinians cannot use the suggested "use of any and all means" of non-binding Resolutions (not law) to override the Israeli rights under International Humanitarian Law of Article 68, The Geneva Convention IV; and the right under Article 51 of the Charter; OR as a means of circumventing the concepts behind the Declaration on Principles of International Law.

The Palestinians have never

• Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
• Not once taken the public position (documented within the individual Organizational Charters of the more than a dozen so-called freedom fighters organizations) to renounce the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
• Demonstrated a willingness the maintain regional or international peace and security.
​

It should be noted, that since the beginning, not one position paper, covenant, or charter, used by Palestinian organizations has ever placed peace and security as objectives to achieve --- with the exception of the 1993 Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat; to include:

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before. You don't express the entire context.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/

No the indigenous Palestinian population (Muslim, Druze, Christian and Jewish), has the right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense is a right, it does not mean you can achieve it. It does not mean that some authority is going to hand it to you on a sliver platter. And, it does not mean that their are not limitations to its application. The limits are wide and varied, but do include:

Chapter I --- UN Charter
Article 2(4)

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ​

Chapter VII --- UN Charter
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.​

A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970
DoP International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (its parent derivative authority) clearly makes it plain that guiding principle concepts include:

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, is not law. It is a non-binding resolution; it is not universally understood, customary or statutory law. I know that there are several resolutions out there, to include A/RES/2649
30 November 1970, A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978, and A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974, all of which contain the same or similar language.

Phrases like "by any means" and "all means necessary" have a consequence involved. The use of force against an Occupying Power is punishable by law (IHL Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention). If the protected persons of the Palestine forge and attack against the Israeli, the are subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

(BOTTOM LINE)

Attacking Israel will have consequences. Arab Palestinians who conduct such activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or in cases where the Hostile Arab Palestinian is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, are NOT performing condoned activities under the DoP and thus, subject to the legal consequences as any criminal. Hostile activities that appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; are subject to such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law.

The Palestinian has no special dispensation to employ jihadist tactics or engage in an armed struggle against the Israeli government.

CONSEQUENCES!

Most Respectfully,
R

It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?

Read the koran and hadiths that detail what jihad means

 

[Phoenall]

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

It is sad but true that the only way to establish peace from Palestinians has been for Arab countries to massacre them by the tens of housands. Hopefully the Palestinains will learns to leave Israel some better option.

The only people who ever massacred Palesinians were Zionist Israel and it's allies and proxies.

When and where did these acts take place then ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I was answering a few different issues in one posting.

• His (Challenger's) disagreement with my assertion.
• Derailing and diverting the thread.
• His (Challenger's) discussion on interpretations of international law.
​

Then, he (Challenger) included in his response the question: what you mean by "jihadist tactics?"

So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

So, actually I did not directly addressed these questions. Not a question on the right to self-defense.

On the issue of the right to self-defense, one party cannot use their (supposed) right to "any and all means" and expect it to negate or override an actual "right to self-defense;" as outlined in Posting #426.

The Palestinians cannot use the suggested "use of any and all means" of non-binding Resolutions (not law) to override the Israeli rights under International Humanitarian Law of Article 68, The Geneva Convention IV; and the right under Article 51 of the Charter; OR as a means of circumventing the concepts behind the Declaration on Principles of International Law.

The Palestinians have never

• Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
• Not once taken the public position (documented within the individual Organizational Charters of the more than a dozen so-called freedom fighters organizations) to renounce the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
• Demonstrated a willingness the maintain regional or international peace and security.
​

It should be noted, that since the beginning, not one position paper, covenant, or charter, used by Palestinian organizations has ever placed peace and security as objectives to achieve --- with the exception of the 1993 Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat; to include:

View attachment 53017​

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

I was answering a few different issues in one posting.

• His (Challenger's) disagreement with my assertion.
• Derailing and diverting the thread.
• His (Challenger's) discussion on interpretations of international law.
​

Then, he (Challenger) included in his response the question: what you mean by "jihadist tactics?"

So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

So, actually I did not directly addressed these questions. Not a question on the right to self-defense.

On the issue of the right to self-defense, one party cannot use their (supposed) right to "any and all means" and expect it to negate or override an actual "right to self-defense;" as outlined in Posting #426.

The Palestinians cannot use the suggested "use of any and all means" of non-binding Resolutions (not law) to override the Israeli rights under International Humanitarian Law of Article 68, The Geneva Convention IV; and the right under Article 51 of the Charter; OR as a means of circumventing the concepts behind the Declaration on Principles of International Law.

The Palestinians have never

• Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
• Not once taken the public position (documented within the individual Organizational Charters of the more than a dozen so-called freedom fighters organizations) to renounce the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
• Demonstrated a willingness the maintain regional or international peace and security.
​

It should be noted, that since the beginning, not one position paper, covenant, or charter, used by Palestinian organizations has ever placed peace and security as objectives to achieve --- with the exception of the 1993 Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat; to include:

View attachment 53017​

Most Respectfully,
R

• Demonstrated their willingness or determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.​

Israel is not a neighbor. It is an occupation.

Your post is based on false premise.

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

Only in your fantasy world of planet Phoney. There are less than 600 Muslims, mainly from Pakistan where you live, an area that's 99% WASP, which probably explains why you are a card carrying fascist. I doubt you've ever seen a Muslim close up, unless it's the person behind the counter at your corner shop when you buy your beer and ciggies.

Well you would be wrong again, and just how do you know where I live if you haven't stalked me.

In 1990 I watched 5,000 adult muslim men walk the main street of the town I lived in in protest of the Gulf war. Every single one from that same town. I worked with and was friends with arabs from Yemen, UAE, Syria and iran. I worked with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and afghanis as well. I don't drink and I don't smoke so I have no need to go into the corner shop for anything.

get your facts right before trying to tell the board where I live and what I do as you are just showing that you are a TROLL and a COWARDLY BULLY

 

[Phoenall]

I wonder if anyone else can see the irony in Phoney's rant. "Europe will rise up against the Muslim invasion and send them back to their own countries, yada, yada, yada" So it's fine for "Europe" to do that to Muslim refugees, that Europe helped engineer, but not for Palestinians to rise up against the European Jewish Zionists who invaded Palestine in order to colonise it. Your hypocracy is showing Phoney...

They are not refugees as many don't come from war torn Syria at all, this was easily shown when border guards addressed them in Syrian dialect and they could not answer. Now the Eastern European nations are erecting border fences and turning back the invasion of islamonazi terrorists. I see the effects of your mismanagement every day when the local A&E is crammed with migrants wanting treatment for everything from a splinter to ebola. Just where is the money coming from to house, feed, clothe, educate and train these unwanted hordes that rape children and behead those that speak out against them. You forget that in 1917 the arab muslim Palestinians were defeated Ottoman soldiers and had no rights at all. that the LoN who actually owned the land invited the Jews to migrate and settle in Palestine, so they did not invade and very few came from Europe. yes they colonised it with those willing to make it a flower in the desert again and not those who wanted another islamonazi shit hole run by extremist muslims to feather their own nests.

YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE WHO DEFENDS ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM SO THAT YOUR MASTERS CAN GAIN COONTROL ONCE MORE AND THROW ANOTHER GENERATION OF 12 YEAR OLD SCHOOLGIRLS TO THE MUSLIMS. BY THE WAY WERE WILL ALL THE MONEY COME FROM TO HOUSE THE MIGRANTS WHEN THE RICH AND SELF SUFFICIENT MOVE OUT OF THE UK ?

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

No, I suppose not. We often disagree.

It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?

(COMMENT)

As to derailing and diverting the thread, I was directly responding to your Post #410 concerning the Palestinian "right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them."

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me at all, in the Proper Context. You are disagreeing with the Mandatory who expressed the opinion and their understanding in 1939. We often try to apply 21st Century interpretations on pre-WWII decisions; which leads to an incorrect understanding of the actions taken. In this case, you are (and of course you are free to do this) ignoring the 1939 intentions and misinterpreting the actions.

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

This was the interpretation expressed by Right Honorable Sir Earl Peel (Chairman) and the Palestine Royal Commission (AKA Peel Commission Report).

Finally, the Jihadist Tactics, especially that with regard to HAMAS, are a bit complex. (I recommend you read the Naval Postgraduate School,Center for Contemporary Conflict Report titled Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics as a start.) Understanding that HAMAS, at the organizational level, "does not conceal its intentions or methodology for exercising control over the Palestinian population." (This is very important, the intention is to control the Palestinian people.) Jihadist tactics evolve with time relative to the goals and objectives.

• In the beginning, Hamas (1988 thru early 1990's) slowly creates a society that is ripe to adopt the suicide tactics of that similar to Hezbollah (Lebanon).
• Hamas begins the early process of galvanizing a segment of the Palestinian people to never accept peace, and only recognize PLO negotiations and settlements as temporary.
• Hamas leaders study Arab modern history, carefully selecting dates to energize resistance and acts of violence in Gaza.
• Isolating and attacking "soft targets."
• Launching attacks from large stand-off areas and within "densely populated areas."

HAMAS, as anti-Israeli Jihadist, fired thousands of Qassam rockets from Gaza into southern Israeli cities and villages, vowing to turn them into "ghost town." HAMAS activities embedded their infrastructure inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings – thereby taking cover behind “human shields.”

Jihadists change tactics to target Egypt Achilles heel: analysts
By Tony Gamal-Gabriel June 10, 2015
​

Most Respectfully,
R

So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?

Defend themselves not fire illegal rockets at Israeli children. Doing that is instigating violence and means that then Israel is defending against that violence. If 2000 Palestinians get killed in the process the blame lies with the Palestinians for instigating the violence in the first place.

Do you understand yet that you defend against attacks you don't defend by instigating attacks.

 

[Humanity]

Challenger, et al,

No, I suppose not. We often disagree.

It will come as no surprise for you to learn that I disagree with your assertion and interpretation, however I have no intention of derailing and diverting the thread towards yet another interminable discussion on interpretations of international law.

Out of curiousity, however, care to define what you mean by "jihadist tactics"?

(COMMENT)

As to derailing and diverting the thread, I was directly responding to your Post #410 concerning the Palestinian "right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them."

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me at all, in the Proper Context. You are disagreeing with the Mandatory who expressed the opinion and their understanding in 1939. We often try to apply 21st Century interpretations on pre-WWII decisions; which leads to an incorrect understanding of the actions taken. In this case, you are (and of course you are free to do this) ignoring the 1939 intentions and misinterpreting the actions.

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

This was the interpretation expressed by Right Honorable Sir Earl Peel (Chairman) and the Palestine Royal Commission (AKA Peel Commission Report).

Finally, the Jihadist Tactics, especially that with regard to HAMAS, are a bit complex. (I recommend you read the Naval Postgraduate School,Center for Contemporary Conflict Report titled Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics as a start.) Understanding that HAMAS, at the organizational level, "does not conceal its intentions or methodology for exercising control over the Palestinian population." (This is very important, the intention is to control the Palestinian people.) Jihadist tactics evolve with time relative to the goals and objectives.

• In the beginning, Hamas (1988 thru early 1990's) slowly creates a society that is ripe to adopt the suicide tactics of that similar to Hezbollah (Lebanon).
• Hamas begins the early process of galvanizing a segment of the Palestinian people to never accept peace, and only recognize PLO negotiations and settlements as temporary.
• Hamas leaders study Arab modern history, carefully selecting dates to energize resistance and acts of violence in Gaza.
• Isolating and attacking "soft targets."
• Launching attacks from large stand-off areas and within "densely populated areas."

HAMAS, as anti-Israeli Jihadist, fired thousands of Qassam rockets from Gaza into southern Israeli cities and villages, vowing to turn them into "ghost town." HAMAS activities embedded their infrastructure inside schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings – thereby taking cover behind “human shields.”

Jihadists change tactics to target Egypt Achilles heel: analysts
By Tony Gamal-Gabriel June 10, 2015
​

Most Respectfully,
R

So what does all this have to do with the Palestinian's right to defend themselves?

Defend themselves not fire illegal rockets at Israeli children. Doing that is instigating violence and means that then Israel is defending against that violence. If 2000 Palestinians get killed in the process the blame lies with the Palestinians for instigating the violence in the first place.

Do you understand yet that you defend against attacks you don't defend by instigating attacks.

It's just unfortunate that your blind, zionut brain cannot see the truth...

Do you understand that 'Freedom fighters' will always fight for their freedom!

 

[Phoenall]

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.

I live in Europe and I see the invasion of muslim scum every day, I see them throwing rocks and petrol bombs. I see them using holy places as toilets and destroying the contents of churches. I see them demanding more and more or they will turn very violent.
So don't talk to me about peace as the only peace you scum understand is when you are beaten down and kept down. Expect Europe to rise up against islam and start pushing the muslims back towards their own countries, Nationalism is on the rise and the people are speaking through the ballot box now.

I got LIES that will never be the answer to the muslim problem, Jordan and Lebanon showed the only way to reach agreement with the Palestinians, mass killings in retaliation for terrorism and violence.

Only in your fantasy world of planet Phoney. There are less than 600 Muslims, mainly from Pakistan where you live, an area that's 99% WASP, which probably explains why you are a card carrying fascist. I doubt you've ever seen a Muslim close up, unless it's the person behind the counter at your corner shop when you buy your beer and ciggies.

Phoney is hypocrite, sound like he confused too.

Wrong on all counts as I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islamonazi violence and terrorism since the attack on the Pan Am flight that came down at Lockerbie. Who in their right mind would instigate mass murder of women and children on such a scale but an extremist psychopath. The more I looked at the muslims the more I saw how evil, vile and uncontrollable they were when it came to their treatment of infidels and kuufars. The koran showed me the way to understanding the Islamic mind when I learnt not to read it as a western holy book, but to read it as it was transcribed. That meant finding the first verse spoken and then finding the second one until the abrogated koran was there in front of me. This shows the decline of the mental state of the unholy prophet mo'mad until in the end he was a raving lunatic.

IT IS YOU AND ALL THE OTHER MUSLIMS WHO ARE THE HYPOCRITES BECAUSE YOU WONT ACCEPT THAT ISLAM TEACHES VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.