Palestinian identity ?

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

This is entirely wrong.

Of course Palestinians are freedom fighters. And, of course Israel has prevented the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.

In terms of heroism, the Palestinians are facing far stronger oppression and have far fewer resources than had the ANC, hence they are probably more heroic given their continued restistance.

As far as violence, the Palestinians have followed the course that other national liberation movements have followed, like the ANC. The ANC's Charter for Umkhonto we Sizwe is remarkably similar to that of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have exercised the right of self-determination three times on 70 years, and the Israelis did not oppose them. "Of course" they Israelis did not interfere with the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

The Palestinians have attacked unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times. They've attacked school children, the disabled, the aged, and the defenseless; many many times in the last 70 years.

Not all national liberation movements are honorable. And clearly the major Arab Palestinian leaders of 1948, were cross-section --- more being less honorable than others. These dishonorable leaders, with a history of serving the Ottoman/Turks and the WWII Germans in formal service and as enemy collaborators against the allied powers, have nothing to be proud of in terms of chivalry or a system of positive religious, moral, and social codes. And this lack of chivalry, in the exercise of positive religious, moral, and social codes, has been passed down over several generations to parents that train their children to hate and pursue acts of terror and war for a cause that cannot be won. These Hostile Arab Palestinians hold many of the characteristics of radical Islamic threats that are generally thought to be less than positive for the species and humanity.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have exercised the right of self-determination three times on 70 years, and the Israelis did not oppose them.​

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

 

[RoccoR]

Humanity, et al,

Like I've said many time in the past:

The is a vast difference between the Israelis that inflict inadvertent casualties while targeting Hostile Arab Palestinians --- and --- the intentional casualties the Hostiles Arab Palestinians have inflicted in the 70 years of attacks, ambushes, kidnappings, murders, piracies, hijackings, bombings and rocket launches against the aforementioned non-combatants.

JUST SAYING​

The Palestinians have attacked unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Yeah, pretty accurate, and every act is WRONG!

Likewise, Israel has and continues to attack unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Just saying!

(COMMENT)

As I have noted in previous discussions, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have continuously argued that they have some special dispensation to commit war crimes and atrocities, and to ignore customary IHL, for which any of the other movement would be challenged. And it is this Radicalized Islamic Resistance attitude (seen in so many Islamic terrorist organizations) that needs to be reigned-in if the world is to become a safer place.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Try again as there is no such thing as the European parliament, so it cant pass any laws. The UK has refused to do this as it is against EU racism laws and many other European nations are doing the same.

What did Charlie habdo to do with the reprisals against muslim terrorists in gaza, showing once again that all muslims are psychopathic killers that need eliminating completely.

You are doing a very good job of demonising your fellow muslims and showing that you are a semi literate brainwashed terrorist supporter

Look UK and EU both forcing Israel that don't establish illegal settlement on land of Palestine and in this regards they are making laws you better checked it out. And as long as long what Charlie Habdo is to do with it. because jews used that situation.

I would think someone who lives in the UK would know more about this that someone who lives thousands of miles away. Still waiting for the proof that the settlements are all illegal, when the facts show that the land was Jewish prior to 1949 when they were forcibly evicted by the Palestinian muslims and their land stolen. There are no such laws in the UK as they would fall foul of the existing human rights laws and racism laws. So the muslim terrorists murdered the innocents at Charlie Hebdo because the Jews might use the murders at a later date, are you trying hardtop be stupid ?

First Paris incident occur just after Israel killed 2000 innocent people and European were not happy with Israeli terror. And second incident occur after this bill passed by European parliament. While whole muslim world condemned the both incidents. Then who is behind the terror attack if all Muslim world rejecting it.

So what did the French have to do with the repercussions of the acts of war by hamas. The French did not drop any bombs on gaza, or fire at any hamas terrorists. If this is the case then France can drop bombs on Mecca and destroy the mosque there. Did the French oppose this bill and declare that they would only buy from Israeli farms in the west bank, again this means that the French can now bomb gaza in return for the deaths of innocents in France. See were this is leading as very soon there would be no muslims left if the west employed Islamic measures and moralities.
The muslims only condemned the attacks after they faces reprisals for them, which is common all over the world. It is islam and its teachings in the koran that is to blame, does it not say terrorise those who will not bow down before me until there is only islam ?

Look phoney you are full of hate and you are earning by spreading hate, tell us how much you earned as propagandist.

Nothing at all as I tell the truth that is very easy to find on the internet and in public library's

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians have attacked unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Yeah, pretty accurate, and every act is WRONG!

Likewise, Israel has and continues to attack unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Just saying!

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

This is entirely wrong.

Of course Palestinians are freedom fighters. And, of course Israel has prevented the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.

In terms of heroism, the Palestinians are facing far stronger oppression and have far fewer resources than had the ANC, hence they are probably more heroic given their continued restistance.

As far as violence, the Palestinians have followed the course that other national liberation movements have followed, like the ANC. The ANC's Charter for Umkhonto we Sizwe is remarkably similar to that of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have exercised the right of self-determination three times on 70 years, and the Israelis did not oppose them. "Of course" they Israelis did not interfere with the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

The Palestinians have attacked unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times. They've attacked school children, the disabled, the aged, and the defenseless; many many times in the last 70 years.

Not all national liberation movements are honorable. And clearly the major Arab Palestinian leaders of 1948, were cross-section --- more being less honorable than others. These dishonorable leaders, with a history of serving the Ottoman/Turks and the WWII Germans in formal service and as enemy collaborators against the allied powers, have nothing to be proud of in terms of chivalry or a system of positive religious, moral, and social codes. And this lack of chivalry, in the exercise of positive religious, moral, and social codes, has been passed down over several generations to parents that train their children to hate and pursue acts of terror and war for a cause that cannot be won. These Hostile Arab Palestinians hold many of the characteristics of radical Islamic threats that are generally thought to be less than positive for the species and humanity.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have exercised the right of self-determination three times on 70 years, and the Israelis did not oppose them.​

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

1948, 1950 and 1988

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Humanity, et al,

Like I've said many time in the past:

The is a vast difference between the Israelis that inflict inadvertent casualties while targeting Hostile Arab Palestinians --- and --- the intentional casualties the Hostiles Arab Palestinians have inflicted in the 70 years of attacks, ambushes, kidnappings, murders, piracies, hijackings, bombings and rocket launches against the aforementioned non-combatants.

JUST SAYING​

The Palestinians have attacked unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Yeah, pretty accurate, and every act is WRONG!

Likewise, Israel has and continues to attack unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Just saying!

(COMMENT)

As I have noted in previous discussions, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have continuously argued that they have some special dispensation to commit war crimes and atrocities, and to ignore customary IHL, for which any of the other movement would be challenged. And it is this Radicalized Islamic Resistance attitude (seen in so many Islamic terrorist organizations) that needs to be reigned-in if the world is to become a safer place.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the same rights to resist an oppressive colonizing regime as all previous people that have been in the same situation. What difference is there between the situation of the Palestinians and the native Irish in Ireland under British colonial occupation? None.

 

[Humanity]

The is a vast difference between the Israelis that inflict inadvertent casualties while targeting Hostile Arab Palestinians

Sorry Rocco...

I really cannot believe that you truly believe those words of yours!

"inadvertent casualties"....

Just how many "inadvertent casualties" do you think there may be from raining phosphorous bombs all over Gaza?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

Why don't your explain why in your world the Jews have no rights first, because they were the sovereign owners of Jewish Palestine. If your "Palestinians" want the rights you claim let them return to the territory they came from and fight for those rights. Or would is this what they are doing in Syria and getting murdered by a dictator and his Russian stooge.

 

[Phoenall]

Humanity, et al,

Like I've said many time in the past:

The is a vast difference between the Israelis that inflict inadvertent casualties while targeting Hostile Arab Palestinians --- and --- the intentional casualties the Hostiles Arab Palestinians have inflicted in the 70 years of attacks, ambushes, kidnappings, murders, piracies, hijackings, bombings and rocket launches against the aforementioned non-combatants.

JUST SAYING​

The Palestinians have attacked unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Yeah, pretty accurate, and every act is WRONG!

Likewise, Israel has and continues to attack unarmed, non-combatants, nationally and internationally, countless times.

Just saying!

(COMMENT)

As I have noted in previous discussions, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have continuously argued that they have some special dispensation to commit war crimes and atrocities, and to ignore customary IHL, for which any of the other movement would be challenged. And it is this Radicalized Islamic Resistance attitude (seen in so many Islamic terrorist organizations) that needs to be reigned-in if the world is to become a safer place.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the same rights to resist an oppressive colonizing regime as all previous people that have been in the same situation. What difference is there between the situation of the Palestinians and the native Irish in Ireland under British colonial occupation? None.

Is Ireland united or is it still in two parts, with the northerly part being ruled by Britain. Demographics ruled the day and the minority Catholic terrorists were outvoted. Like all terrorists they threatened attacks on innocents again so the British security authorities should now pick them off one by one and demolish their homes.

By the way you do realise that it is the Catholics that are the colonisers don't you.

 

[Phoenall]

The is a vast difference between the Israelis that inflict inadvertent casualties while targeting Hostile Arab Palestinians

Sorry Rocco...

I really cannot believe that you truly believe those words of yours!

"inadvertent casualties"....

Just how many "inadvertent casualties" do you think there may be from raining phosphorous bombs all over Gaza?

So two incidents of W.P. used in accordance with international law is now " raining phosphorous bombs all over Gaza " How many casualties do you think are as a result or war crimes by hamas and other Palestinians that you seem to constantly ignore ?

 

[Humanity]

The is a vast difference between the Israelis that inflict inadvertent casualties while targeting Hostile Arab Palestinians

Sorry Rocco...

I really cannot believe that you truly believe those words of yours!

"inadvertent casualties"....

Just how many "inadvertent casualties" do you think there may be from raining phosphorous bombs all over Gaza?

So two incidents of W.P. used in accordance with international law is now " raining phosphorous bombs all over Gaza " How many casualties do you think are as a result or war crimes by hamas and other Palestinians that you seem to constantly ignore ?

Strangely enough, if you could be bothered to open your eyes and mind and read rather than make your own shit up... I do not support Hamas, neither do I support their acts of terrorism... You will have seen, if you could be bothered to read than make shit up that I denounce Hamas as much as I denounce Israel!

I pity you for being such a dickhead and not being able to read what is put in front of you!

And to answer your question...

A very small fraction of people when compared to Israel! No, I know you won't like that answer, however, you cannot argue against facts and figures...

Don't bother responding to this post, I know it will be full of zionut BS and Islamophobic hatred!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties. So in effect they became stateless and landless vagabonds with no right to anything.

What rights did the Germans have after 1919 when they surrendered, or the Jews in 1933 to 1945 when they were mass murdered ?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

Indeed, none of the above, actually. Through ineptitude and incompetence, the Pal'istanians were unable and unwilling to cobble together a functioning society.

 

[Humanity]

By the way you do realise that it is the Catholics that are the colonisers don't you.

Oh? How so?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read my posting. I don't think I said that; or even implied that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK lets talk "external interference."

Full of crap, Rocco.

The right to self determination without external interference.​

Now when did that happen?

(COMMENT)

Early in the Mandate Administration (after the closure and hand-off by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), at least three attempts were made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Jewish did not interfere.

• Throughout the last years of the Mandate Administration, powerful Arab influences and Hostile Palestinians attempted to circumvent the decisions made by the international community. The Jewish did not interfere.

• In 1950, the Arab Palestinians voted to become part of Jordan. The Israelis did not interfere.

• In 1988, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declared independence, for which the Israelis did not interfere.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinians are always whining about some course of action they decided upon that did not workout; and they naturally assign fault to anyone but themselves. The perpetual victims.

Prior to 1988, there was no power that the Arab Palestinians could call "external interference" since there was no Arab Palestinians entity to which interference could impact. The Hostile Arab Palestinians, through ineptitude, were unable to influence and establish their own self-governing institutions in a successful manner.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Please explain how citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I do not believe you will find anywhere - that says "citizens of a territory defined by international borders have no rights." The "rights" were defined. The question is: What "rights" are you suggesting they have? What "rights" and where are they documented as applying?

The internationally recognized border to the territory for which the Mandate Applied, outlined the Mandate Government as defined by the Council and Allied Powers. It did not outline subdivisions like Transjordan (as a Article 22 "Certain Communities"). And in those defined responsibilities and powers, it clearly states that the Mandatory was to protect ("safeguarding") the "civil rights" and the "religious rights" of the inhabitants (irrespective of race and religion). Those are the only two "rights" that were mentioned and were not otherwise defined alla 1922.

While I do not think that the Mandate was to be interpreted totally within a strict compliance framework, the Mandate did stipulate that the authority, control or administration would be "explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations." And while "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration."

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties. So in effect they became stateless and landless vagabonds with no right to anything.

What rights did the Germans have after 1919 when they surrendered, or the Jews in 1933 to 1945 when they were mass murdered ?

They had the same rights as everyone else did in 1917, until their leaders signed them away in the surrender treaties.​

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's get is Straight:

Let's get a point straight. Is it that the Palestinian's rights were violated, or is it that the Palestinians just had no rights?

(REFERENCE)

In the period between 1919 and 1922, when the basic decisions were made, the matter of "rights" were addressed in the Mandate for Palestine:

PREAMBLE
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

ARTICLE 2
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ARTICLE 15
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ARTICLE 28
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.

• ARTICLE 13
All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

• ARTICLE 14
A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
​

(COMMENT)

But in period 1919 and the end of the Mandate, the entire population of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine, were granted citizenship to the Territory. However, even General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) did not grant and "rights." The Resolution (Paragraph 11) made recommendations pertaining to: addressed the Issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. (“Compensation --- for those who did not wish to return --- should be paid for the property … and for loss of or damage to property.")

Right of Return was not guarantee as an unconditional Right of Return.
Recommendations conditional:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.”
​

Not until the non-binding Resolution 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR --- first global expression), did additional rights become considered; and it was not until the adoption of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both created in 1966 and its passage into force (law) in 1976 (a decade after the Arab-Israeli War 1967). It should be noted that nothing in the UDHR, ICCPR or ECESCR can be a retroactive proscription. (CONCEPT: A law that operates to make criminal or punishable or in any way expressly affects an act done prior to the passing of the law.)

(REMEMBER)

The proclamation clause at the end of the preamble makes clear, however, that the Declaration as such does not create binding legal obligations. The term “declaration” has since been officially defined by the U.N. Secretariat as: “a formal and solemn instrument, suitable for rare occasions when principles of great and lasting significance are being enunciated.” UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.610 (1962). Though not legally binding, a declaration “may by custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon States.” While not binding per se, soft law instruments may not only deploy important legal consequences, but also be as effective as «hard law». The UNHRC attempts to do this by interlacing the UDHR with the ICCPR and the ICESCR - creating the a single concept (collectively known as the Bill of Human Rights).

Most Respectfully,
R