Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Phoenall]

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.

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.

SEE THE MUSLIM ADMITS THAT JEWS AND ZIONISTS ARE THE SAME THING.

 

[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.

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.

And you muslims have destroyed every option that was offered to you and will now pay the price. And the price will be a very high one indeed. The Jews are back home, very soon the muslims will also be back home and then they will suffer greatly

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

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

(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.".

(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.

And as the Islamic histories show they mass murdered them when ever the blood lust rose. They took the young girls as sex slaves and some of the young boys, killing the rest and stealing their property.

REMEMBER THAT THE GATES OF VIENNA COULD HAPPEN AGAIN AND ISLAM WILL BE PUSHED BACK INTO THE SEA

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Wasn't that one of the concepts you stole from the Assyrians because you had no intelligent people of your own ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Only because the Palestinians proved themselves to be bad neighbours, and it is Jordanian land that is occupied since 1967. The Palestinians promised to follow the UN charter and have yet to do so 48 years later, how much longer will the world wait for them to keep their promise ?

 

[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.

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!

And they never fire illegal weapons at the enemies children as that is a war crime that will result in their children becoming targets. If someone targeted your children from Palestine would you still say " well they are only fighting for their freedom" or would you demand they be bombed into submitting ?

 

[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!

And they never fire illegal weapons at the enemies children as that is a war crime that will result in their children becoming targets. If someone targeted your children from Palestine would you still say " well they are only fighting for their freedom" or would you demand they be bombed into submitting ?

Let me give you a clue...

I would certainly NOT have been voting for Netanyahu in the last elections!

And yes, they are 'only'(?) fighting for their freedom!

If you were living under constant threat and oppression would you not "fight for your freedom"?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I would have expected this as a response.

• 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.

(COMMENT)

There have been several "Occupations" that took place that were not belligerent. And they all ended on a successful note. The intentional violent nature of the Arab Palestinians has prolonged the "Occupation."

But that is water under the bridge.

It is not likely that the contemporary (post-1948 forward) Arab Palestinians will, in their lifetime, see a successful, prosperous and free State of Palestine in their lifetime. The minimum age of of a true refugee born in what is now Israel would be nearly 68 years old. An 18 year old adult from that time (1948) would be approaching 85 years old. It is estimated that the people aged 65 or more constituted 2.9% of the total population – 3.2% in the West Bank and 2.4% in the Gaza Strip.

The Estimated Life expectancy:

• Total Population: 75.01 years

• Male: 72.97 years
• Female: 77.17 years (2011 est.)
​

Very soon, there will be no remaining Arab Palestinian that even lived in Israel in 1948 and can claim to be a true refugee; or that will meet the criteria under Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently. But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.

"Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "

The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories

 

[MJB12741]

Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently. But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.

"Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "

The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories

Well duh, reading your own link, who the hell made the Palestinians "refugees" between 1948 & 1967 during the Arab/Israeli wars?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I would have expected this as a response.

• 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.

(COMMENT)

There have been several "Occupations" that took place that were not belligerent. And they all ended on a successful note. The intentional violent nature of the Arab Palestinians has prolonged the "Occupation."

But that is water under the bridge.

It is not likely that the contemporary (post-1948 forward) Arab Palestinians will, in their lifetime, see a successful, prosperous and free State of Palestine in their lifetime. The minimum age of of a true refugee born in what is now Israel would be nearly 68 years old. An 18 year old adult from that time (1948) would be approaching 85 years old. It is estimated that the people aged 65 or more constituted 2.9% of the total population – 3.2% in the West Bank and 2.4% in the Gaza Strip.

The Estimated Life expectancy:

• Total Population: 75.01 years

• Male: 72.97 years
• Female: 77.17 years (2011 est.)
​

Very soon, there will be no remaining Arab Palestinian that even lived in Israel in 1948 and can claim to be a true refugee; or that will meet the criteria under Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Most respectfully,
R

Israel has always been a settler colonial project. The Palestinians were to be replaced by foreign settlers. Belligerent occupation is merely a means to that end. Whether the Palestinians and Israelis got along or not would not change that ultimate goal. In fact if the Palestinians were more docile there would be nothing left of Palestine to fight over.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves with whatever little they have for a hundred years.

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I would have expected this as a response.

• 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.

(COMMENT)

There have been several "Occupations" that took place that were not belligerent. And they all ended on a successful note. The intentional violent nature of the Arab Palestinians has prolonged the "Occupation."

But that is water under the bridge.

It is not likely that the contemporary (post-1948 forward) Arab Palestinians will, in their lifetime, see a successful, prosperous and free State of Palestine in their lifetime. The minimum age of of a true refugee born in what is now Israel would be nearly 68 years old. An 18 year old adult from that time (1948) would be approaching 85 years old. It is estimated that the people aged 65 or more constituted 2.9% of the total population – 3.2% in the West Bank and 2.4% in the Gaza Strip.

The Estimated Life expectancy:

• Total Population: 75.01 years

• Male: 72.97 years
• Female: 77.17 years (2011 est.)
​

Very soon, there will be no remaining Arab Palestinian that even lived in Israel in 1948 and can claim to be a true refugee; or that will meet the criteria under Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Most respectfully,
R

Israel has always been a settler colonial project. The Palestinians were to be replaced by foreign settlers. Belligerent occupation is merely a means to that end. Whether the Palestinians and Israelis got along or not would not change that ultimate goal. In fact if the Palestinians were more docile there would be nothing left of Palestine to fight over.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves with whatever little they have for a hundred years.

You are stating that the Arab nomads of Israel were the ONLY Arabs to have no weapons since 1915?
Everybody else got weapons BEFORE 1948 but NOBODY, including their OWN brethren, would supply them with arms?
You better have a talk with the rest of the Arab world; unfeeling assholes.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, this is very nearly true; as far as you take it.

Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently. But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.

"Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "

The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories

(REFERENCE)

There is a backlash developing where the major contributors are considering a review of just how the UNRWA has demonstrated any measure of success.

Time to Reconsider U.S. Support of UNRWA --- 5 March 2015
By Brett D. Schaefer and James Phillips

Six Decades of Failure

UNRWA has required enormous financial support from the international community—support that increases as the population served by UNRWA increases. Although UNRWA receives some resources from the U.N. regular budget, most of its funding is provided through voluntary contributions. The U.S. is the largest single-state donor to UNRWA, providing $294 million (24 percent of UNRWA contributions) to support the regular and non-regular budgets in 2013. Cumulatively, the U.S. has provided roughly $4.9 billion in contributions to UNRWA since 1950. Despite this generous support, the U.S. has been unable to address a number of concerns about UNRWA’s mandate, operations, and impact.​

--- --- ---

A Counterproductive Definition of Refugee.

UNRWA was set up to address a temporary crisis involving over 600,000 refugees defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” Many of these original refugees are deceased, but the refugee population has expanded to 5.09 million individuals because UNRWA redefined and expanded its definition of refugee. Today, UNRWA has made refugee status eligible to the “descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children.” Under UNRWA, even if a Palestinian lives in the West Bank or Gaza—territory governed by Palestinians—or earns citizenship in another country, he is still considered a refugee. Moreover, some registered persons receiving UNRWA assistance are “economic refugees” who resided on the Arab side of the armistice line or were nomads or seasonal workers who were not displaced by the 1948 conflict.
​

(COMMENT)

Under current UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) --- the definition of a Refugee is a one-of-a-kind nature. Only the Palestinians are allowed to define themselves and demand compensation. But I don't see the

Nothing you have said is wrong; but, it is not likely that in the next decade, the UNRWA will survive. There will be virtually no one that would match the international legal definition of a refugee in any other situation.

While the current situation generally favors the Palestinians, it is almost certain that in the long run, the Palestinians will not be allowed to takeover, overrun, or corrupt the State of Israel, the only country in the region which the world will never have to be worried about becoming a radical Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, this is very nearly true; as far as you take it.

Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently. But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.

"Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "

The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories

(REFERENCE)

There is a backlash developing where the major contributors are considering a review of just how the UNRWA has demonstrated any measure of success.

Time to Reconsider U.S. Support of UNRWA --- 5 March 2015
By Brett D. Schaefer and James Phillips

Six Decades of Failure

UNRWA has required enormous financial support from the international community—support that increases as the population served by UNRWA increases. Although UNRWA receives some resources from the U.N. regular budget, most of its funding is provided through voluntary contributions. The U.S. is the largest single-state donor to UNRWA, providing $294 million (24 percent of UNRWA contributions) to support the regular and non-regular budgets in 2013. Cumulatively, the U.S. has provided roughly $4.9 billion in contributions to UNRWA since 1950. Despite this generous support, the U.S. has been unable to address a number of concerns about UNRWA’s mandate, operations, and impact.​

--- --- ---

A Counterproductive Definition of Refugee.

UNRWA was set up to address a temporary crisis involving over 600,000 refugees defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” Many of these original refugees are deceased, but the refugee population has expanded to 5.09 million individuals because UNRWA redefined and expanded its definition of refugee. Today, UNRWA has made refugee status eligible to the “descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children.” Under UNRWA, even if a Palestinian lives in the West Bank or Gaza—territory governed by Palestinians—or earns citizenship in another country, he is still considered a refugee. Moreover, some registered persons receiving UNRWA assistance are “economic refugees” who resided on the Arab side of the armistice line or were nomads or seasonal workers who were not displaced by the 1948 conflict.
​

(COMMENT)

Under current UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) --- the definition of a Refugee is a one-of-a-kind nature. Only the Palestinians are allowed to define themselves and demand compensation. But I don't see the

Nothing you have said is wrong; but, it is not likely that in the next decade, the UNRWA will survive. There will be virtually no one that would match the international legal definition of a refugee in any other situation.

While the current situation generally favors the Palestinians, it is almost certain that in the long run, the Palestinians will not be allowed to takeover, overrun, or corrupt the State of Israel, the only country in the region which the world will never have to be worried about becoming a radical Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is what people like you said about South Africa, the only country in the region that the world did not have to be worried about becoming a Soviet communist satellite, like its neighbors. The Palestinians will regain their homeland, the demographics are in their favor.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I would have expected this as a response.

• 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.

(COMMENT)

There have been several "Occupations" that took place that were not belligerent. And they all ended on a successful note. The intentional violent nature of the Arab Palestinians has prolonged the "Occupation."

But that is water under the bridge.

It is not likely that the contemporary (post-1948 forward) Arab Palestinians will, in their lifetime, see a successful, prosperous and free State of Palestine in their lifetime. The minimum age of of a true refugee born in what is now Israel would be nearly 68 years old. An 18 year old adult from that time (1948) would be approaching 85 years old. It is estimated that the people aged 65 or more constituted 2.9% of the total population – 3.2% in the West Bank and 2.4% in the Gaza Strip.

The Estimated Life expectancy:

• Total Population: 75.01 years

• Male: 72.97 years
• Female: 77.17 years (2011 est.)
​

Very soon, there will be no remaining Arab Palestinian that even lived in Israel in 1948 and can claim to be a true refugee; or that will meet the criteria under Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Most respectfully,
R

Israel has always been a settler colonial project. The Palestinians were to be replaced by foreign settlers. Belligerent occupation is merely a means to that end. Whether the Palestinians and Israelis got along or not would not change that ultimate goal. In fact if the Palestinians were more docile there would be nothing left of Palestine to fight over.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves with whatever little they have for a hundred years.

Good point. Yes & who can blame the Palestinians for defending themselves against what the Arab countries have done to them in those 100 years.

 

[Indeependent]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, this is very nearly true; as far as you take it.

Because the creation of the Palestine refugees was a direct consequence of a foolish (and immoral if not illegal) action of the U.N. a Palestinian refugee is defined differently. But you knew this, you were just trying to slip something by us, as usual.

"Palestinian refugees do not fall under the legal regime of refugee protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention, its companion instrument the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is eligible to all other refugees. For the Palestinian refugees a special legal regime was created. This regime comprises two special UN agencies - the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine (UNCCP) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) as well as certain provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UNHCR statute. UNRWA was established in December 1948 with the dual mission of providing direct relief and establishing a “works program” for the approximately 700.000 refugees that fled what is now known as Israel in 1948. These services have been provided to those meeting UNRWA’s operational definition of “Palestine refugees”: persons whose normal place of residence was in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s mandate today includes also provision of basic needs to those refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) that had to flee their homes in the 1967 war as well as the descendants of the original male Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 under the precondition that they live in one of UNRWA’s five fields of operations, whether in a camp or not. Only one third of the registered refugees still live in refugee camps. "

The legal Situation of Palestinian Refugees, Palestinian Territories

(REFERENCE)

There is a backlash developing where the major contributors are considering a review of just how the UNRWA has demonstrated any measure of success.

Time to Reconsider U.S. Support of UNRWA --- 5 March 2015
By Brett D. Schaefer and James Phillips

Six Decades of Failure

UNRWA has required enormous financial support from the international community—support that increases as the population served by UNRWA increases. Although UNRWA receives some resources from the U.N. regular budget, most of its funding is provided through voluntary contributions. The U.S. is the largest single-state donor to UNRWA, providing $294 million (24 percent of UNRWA contributions) to support the regular and non-regular budgets in 2013. Cumulatively, the U.S. has provided roughly $4.9 billion in contributions to UNRWA since 1950. Despite this generous support, the U.S. has been unable to address a number of concerns about UNRWA’s mandate, operations, and impact.​

--- --- ---

A Counterproductive Definition of Refugee.

UNRWA was set up to address a temporary crisis involving over 600,000 refugees defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” Many of these original refugees are deceased, but the refugee population has expanded to 5.09 million individuals because UNRWA redefined and expanded its definition of refugee. Today, UNRWA has made refugee status eligible to the “descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children.” Under UNRWA, even if a Palestinian lives in the West Bank or Gaza—territory governed by Palestinians—or earns citizenship in another country, he is still considered a refugee. Moreover, some registered persons receiving UNRWA assistance are “economic refugees” who resided on the Arab side of the armistice line or were nomads or seasonal workers who were not displaced by the 1948 conflict.
​

(COMMENT)

Under current UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) --- the definition of a Refugee is a one-of-a-kind nature. Only the Palestinians are allowed to define themselves and demand compensation. But I don't see the

Nothing you have said is wrong; but, it is not likely that in the next decade, the UNRWA will survive. There will be virtually no one that would match the international legal definition of a refugee in any other situation.

While the current situation generally favors the Palestinians, it is almost certain that in the long run, the Palestinians will not be allowed to takeover, overrun, or corrupt the State of Israel, the only country in the region which the world will never have to be worried about becoming a radical Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is what people like you said about South Africa, the only country in the region that the world did not have to be worried about becoming a Soviet communist satellite, like its neighbors. The Palestinians will regain their homeland, the demographics are in their favor.

Lack of education and technology is against them.
Not to mention the fact that Jews around the world actually care about their fellow Jews when push comes to shove.
Even the most secular Jews supports the Gaza bombardment.

Yeah, yeah, now you're going to post about 3 Jews somewhere with beards who protested against the Gaza bombardment.
You are very unimpressive.

 

[montelatici]

The blacks in South Africa had less education and less technology than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine. Christians care about their fellow Christians in Palestine. Christians are slowly turning against Israel. In a generation or two, Israeli Jews, already a minority in the territory they have control over, will have difficulty maintaining their police state.

 

[Kondor3]

...Palestinians will regain their homeland, the demographics are in their favor.

You put far too much faith in demographics.

Demographics aren't going to do the Palestinians one damned bit of good, once they're expelled into Jordan.

And, when it comes down to that, there won't be a damned thing that the Palestinians will be able to do to stop them, it will happen quickly, there will be no Arab cavalry coming over the hill, and the rest of the world will piss and moan and do nothing, other than to lay-down a couple of embargoes that will last all of two or three years.

Small price to pay, to complete the Reconquista of Eretz Yisrael.

 

[montelatici]

There will be no expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan. The Reconquista of Palestine by the Christians and Muslims will be through demographic change.

 

[Kondor3]

There will be no expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan. The Reconquista of Palestine by the Christians and Muslims will be through demographic change.

Leave the Christians out of this.

They want no part of the Muslim Insanity.

And it is Insanity.

Insanity that is doomed to failure.

It just takes a while to sink through those Neanderthal skulls.