Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

✧ The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. Para 13b • A/AC.21/10. 16 February 1948

Good read, thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

✧ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ et al,

BLUF: This is not accurate at all. This is the case where the Hostile Arab Palestinians desperately want to blame a colonial mission on a colonial power. It helps them to justify their psychopathic pattern of behavior.

RoccoR said:
✧ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.

(COMMENT)
.
The territory did not belong to the Arab Palestinians.

◈ The phrase "their country" is to render the emotion that something was taken from the Arab Palestinian.​

​

◈ The phrase "colonial settlers" is an attempt to demonize those that the Allied Powers recognized and facilitated the immigration process to the territory.​

​

◈ The phrase "had every right to reject" implies that something improper or unfair was offered to the Arab Palestinians.​

Tiny commentaries such as this often have no real information to impart. It is mostly propaganda generated by the opposing side of the commentary.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory did not belong to the Arab Palestinians.

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The United States never belonged to the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Italians, or the Palestinians. But you will not find a link that says that. You will find a history of various exploring powers that, at various points in time, lay claim to portions of North America.

The territory did not belong to the Arab Palestinians.

Link?

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinians, even once, in the last Millenium, held governmental control over any portion of the regional territory in dispute today, there would be a record.

There is a difference between being the "resident" and being the "owner."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The United States never belonged to the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Italians, or the Palestinians. But you will not find a link that says that.

Then why do you shovel crap that you cannot prove?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the Arab Palestinians, even once, in the last Millenium, held governmental control

There you go again.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
.
Well, the problem with your critique is that:

◈ I did not say I could prove it.​

"But you will not find a link that says that."​

​

◈ I implied that you cannot prove it.​

"there would be a record"​

The notion that the Arab Palestinians exercised sovereignty (the idea it was their territory → territorial integrity) during the time of the Ottman Empire is much like supernatural claims (King Solomon's mine) or the beliefs in magic (Merlin).

Other than the silliness in the Declaration by the All Palestine Government (which tried to overturn the Right of Self-Determination of the Israelis), I only ask that you show in good faith, what evidence you have to support your notion?

There is no known "binding" international agreement concluded between any early 20th Century State and the Arab Palestinian, in any form, establishing any sovereignty over any territory to - or for - or in the name of the Arab Palestinians. There is no instrument in which the parties (members of the Allied Powers or Central Powers) promise some territory to Arab Palestinian, either at a fixed or determinable future time - or - by Arab Palestinian demand, under specific terms.

If there is, and you have such secret knowledge, please show me.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no known "binding" international agreement, blah, blah, blah.

You don't understand what happened. Or maybe you are just going to poo poo the whole thing because it does not fit Israel's BS.

After WWI, the allied powers decided to create five new states in that area. They defined the international borders and named each one. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to these new states and the people became nationals of their respective state. Local laws granted citizenship to these people.

The UN has stated that the Palestinian people in Palestine (no mention of a government or state) have the standard list if inalienable rights.

Definition of inalienable​

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Definition of INALIENABLE

incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights & Obligations​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't understand what happened. Or maybe you are just going to poo poo the whole thing because it does not fit Israel's BS.

(COMMENT)

Oh, I understand this false belief perfectly. And this is a revised set of reasonings that are a must for the Arab Palestinians to believe in order to justify their incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence that is prohibited by law.

This misinterpretation (intentional deception) falls behind the meaning of Article 30 and the required assimilation of the inhabitants once a final decision is made. Article 30 (as is the entire treaty) is an agreement between the parties to the treaty. It has no obligation or promise to the Arab Palestinian.

If anyone here is trying to obfuscate the reality of the political conditions of a century ago, it is you. At the time the covenant, convention, treaties, and mandates were agreed upon, the Allied Powers really did not have a final plan in place. That is why they kept saying "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."

The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty." That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians ("the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned").

After WWI, the allied powers decided to create five new states in that area. They defined the international borders and named each one. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to these new states and the people became nationals of their respective state. Local laws granted citizenship to these people.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Allied powers did opt to use the historical regional names in some cases (Lebanon - Syria - Most of the Vilayah of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem became Palestine - Jordan was a carveout of the Vilayah of Damascus) but in other cases not (Mesopotamia became Iraq - most of the Nejd, Asir, and Hejaz became Saudi Arabia)

The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty." That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians ("the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned").

The UN has stated that the Palestinian people in Palestine (no mention of a government or state) have the standard list if inalienable rights.

Definition of inalienable​

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

(COMMENT)
.
I simply don't know where you get these thoughts. There are 9 core international human rights instruments. There is no binding agreement that recognizes a separate category of "Inalienable Rights." From an international perspective, there is no mutually agreed-upon list of such rights. Even the "right to life" {PART III Article 6 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights • 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.} is not universally recognized by the Arab Palestinians. HAMAS (The Islamic Resistance Movement) has its own brand of justice. They have been known to exercise summary justice on the street.

Hamas’ Anti-Semitism Publicly Exposed After Leader Urges Palestinians to Kill ‘Every Jew’ ​

Palestinian Activist Yaser Mazhar Calls on Palestinians to Carry out Suicide Bombings in Israel: We Long for Bus Bombings​

Your words are hollow. The meaning is just camoflage to appear as if to hold a rightious cause. But in truth, the Arab Palestinian (while not the greatest threat to humanity) represent a morally corrupt and unjust society and a danger to civilization everywhere.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

This misinterpretation (intentional deception) falls behind the meaning of Article 30

Article 30 did not transfer the territory. It merely stated where it went. It was the final destination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is why they kept saying "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."

That was in 1922. The Treaty of Lausanne was in 1924.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: A Panel on a Topic the US Does NOT Have
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

Oh, I understand this false belief perfectly. And this is a revised set of reasonings that are a must for the Arab Palestinians to believe in order to justify their incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence that is prohibited by law.

This misinterpretation (intentional deception) falls behind the meaning of Article 30 and the required assimilation of the inhabitants once a final decision is made. Article 30 (as is the entire treaty) is an agreement between the parties to the treaty. It has no obligation or promise to the Arab Palestinian.

If anyone here is trying to obfuscate the reality of the political conditions of a century ago, it is you. At the time the covenant, convention, treaties, and mandates were agreed upon, the Allied Powers really did not have a final plan in place. That is why they kept saying "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."

The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty." That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians ("the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned").


(COMMENT)

Yes, the Allied powers did opt to use the historical regional names in some cases (Lebanon - Syria - Most of the Vilayah of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem became Palestine - Jordan was a carveout of the Vilayah of Damascus) but in other cases not (Mesopotamia became Iraq - most of the Nejd, Asir, and Hejaz became Saudi Arabia)

The only transfer that was made, relative to the territories in dispute today, was in Article 16 when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty." That clearly left the entire future of the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers; and not the Arab Palestinians ("the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned").


(COMMENT)
.
I simply don't know where you get these thoughts. There are 9 core international human rights instruments. There is no binding agreement that recognizes a separate category of "Inalienable Rights." From an international perspective, there is no mutually agreed-upon list of such rights. Even the "right to life" {PART III Article 6 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights • 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.} is not universally recognized by the Arab Palestinians. HAMAS (The Islamic Resistance Movement) has its own brand of justice. They have been known to exercise summary justice on the street.

Hamas’ Anti-Semitism Publicly Exposed After Leader Urges Palestinians to Kill ‘Every Jew’ ​

Palestinian Activist Yaser Mazhar Calls on Palestinians to Carry out Suicide Bombings in Israel: We Long for Bus Bombings​

Your words are hollow. The meaning is just camoflage to appear as if to hold a rightious cause. But in truth, the Arab Palestinian (while not the greatest threat to humanity) represent a morally corrupt and unjust society and a danger to civilization everywhere.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman.

I don't see where you refuted anything in my post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Is Israel an Apartheid State?​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights to Resources​

 

[rylah]

The Palestinians had every right to reject giving half of their country to colonial settlers.

Exactly the argument to reject Arab sovereignty,
anywhere between the East and West banks of the river.

Don't Palestinians also have a right to reject Arab supremacy?

 

[rylah]

You don't understand what happened. Or maybe you are just going to poo poo the whole thing because it does not fit Israel's BS.

After WWI, the allied powers decided to create five new states in that area. They defined the international borders and named each one. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to these new states and the people became nationals of their respective state. Local laws granted citizenship to these people.

The UN has stated that the Palestinian people in Palestine (no mention of a government or state) have the standard list if inalienable rights.

Definition of inalienable​

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Definition of INALIENABLE

incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Maybe your narrative is full of logical contradictions.
and understanding that you expect nothing is questioned.

For example, you argue Transjordan's and Palestine's "defined international borders",
using the Treaty of Lausanne which mentions neither Transjordan nor Palestine.
Statements said in the UN are neither expression of reality or law.

What does it get you so far?

Furthermore, regarding Inalienable Rights - the Treaty of Lausanne refers to the authority of the League of Nations, which decisions are international law binding upon the UN, with rights emanating from them having no statute of limitations. Therefore the UN cannot pass a legally binding resolution
contrary to recognized inalienable Jewish title to Palestine and law on its books.

Any law authorizes Arab sovereignty in Palestine?

 

[rylah]

Then why do you shovel crap that you cannot prove?

If your last resort is asking to prove a negative,
then already you admit to lose the argument.

Can you prove water is not wet?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If your last resort is asking to prove a negative,
then already you admit to lose the argument.

Can you prove water is not wet?

Why pull something out of your ass then duck out when asked to prove it?