Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Conflict Period
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing I say relative to your definitions is going to be satisfactory. So I just remained silent. It depends on who's references you use.

RoccoR said:https://www.usmessageboard.com/goto/post?id=28705092

You did not respond to my post.

(COMMENT)

If you use the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) as a reference, if you maintained a normal place of residence within Palestine (thumbnail) during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 Persons who meet United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s Palestine Refugee criteria.

I do not use the term "NAKBA" because it is a loaded term with baggage.

A comprehensive database with full-text documentation of the role of the United Nations system and other international and non-governmental organizations relevant to the Question of Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1946 is available, with a directory of linked sites, at UNISPAL-United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine.
SOURCE: Kiyo Akasaka • Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, page iv • Blue Book Question of Palestine

• I think that 1946-1947 to have been a period was an intensive period of civil unrest.
• I consider 1947-1948 to have been the short Civil War with the territory subject to the Mandate.
• I consider 1948-1949 to have been the period in which Arab League Forces confront Israeli Forces.
• I consider 1949 and forward the Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria took what territory they could under occupation. Israel merely maintained the Armistice Lines.

I do not feel it is worth the discussion entanglement over the exact names we call the periods. It simply is not worth the bandwidth.

I take issue with the notion spread by the Arab Palestinians that the period ≈ 1922 to present constitute Israeli Occupation of Arab territory - that being Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south.

But if the claimant (the Arab Palestinians) wants to insist that it is all Zionist occupation, then what difference does it make if they maintain control of the West Bank? If the Israel’s are going to be painted as the black-hearted invaders the Arab Palestinians claim them to be, then what difference do a few more thousand square kilometers make.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I do not use the term "NAKBA" because it is a loaded term with baggage.

Of course not. It would clear up a lot of misconceptions. The liars say that five Arab armies attacked the new state of Israel. (not true) That the Arabs lost that war. (not true) That the refugees were a product of the war that the Arabs started. (not true)

 

[Hollie]

Of course not. It would clear up a lot of misconceptions. The liars say that five Arab armies attacked the new state of Israel. (not true) That the Arabs lost that war. (not true) That the refugees were a product of the war that the Arabs started. (not true)

Actually, it’s true.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jerusalem: Prof John Quigley​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jerusalem: Nadia Hijab​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Media Biases Against the Palestinians! Mnar Adley/ Editor Mint Press News.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine Podcast #42: ‘Coronacrisis: Anti-Palestinian Racism and Grassroots Resistance’​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine Podcast #41: Yara Harawi & Rania Muhareb - ‘Israeli Annexation: Ramifications& Resistance’​

 

[P F Tinmore]

if you maintained a normal place of residence within Palestine (thumbnail) during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 Persons who meet United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s Palestine Refugee criteria.

UNWRA does not define who is a refugee. It defines who qualifies for aid.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, it’s true.

Links?

Of course not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But if the claimant (the Arab Palestinians) wants to insist that it is all Zionist occupation,

You have been dancing around that question for years but have never posted anything showing that not to be true.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

UNWRA does not define who is a refugee. It defines who qualifies for aid.

(COMMENT)

II agree 100%. In my opinion, the definition of a "Palestinian Refugee" should be taken from the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) 91951).

The problem with using it is that it does NOT apply to most of the registrants under UNRWA coverage. In fact, there may be as few as 50,000 Palestinian refugees under Article 1 of the CRSR. Article 1c of the Convention is very devastating.

You have been dancing around that question for years but have never posted anything showing that not to be true.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this argument is a losing proposition for the Arab Palestinians. It was never sovereign under the Arab Palestinians for it to have been occupied. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), which was the joint force's administration over the Levant ended the control over the Territory subject to the Mandate in June 1920. At that time, it was technically under the control of the British High Commissioner (BHC). While the Jewish Agency cooperated with the BHC, the Arab Higher Committee declined to become involved and declined the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration.

Well, I will never be able to satisfy your criteria, because you don't have one. And so it is a waste of bandwidth to keep explaining the status of the territory between 1920 and 1967. Remember that:

​

So, if there was not an identified state or country prior to 2012, then who occupied territory which was not a State or country for the purposes of independence. This is one of those points we will just have to agree to disagree on.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

II agree 100%. In my opinion, the definition of a "Palestinian Refugee" should be taken from the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) 91951).

"Palestinian Refugee" was defined in resolution 194.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was never sovereign under the Arab Palestinians for it to have been occupied.

The West Bank was occupied by Jordan. The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt. The rest of Palestine was occupied by Israel. Now they are all occupied by Israel. What sovereign are they talking about?

What is the difference between the occupations of Jordan, Egypt, and Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 14 • Chapter IV • United Nations Charter​

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among na- tions, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.​

"Palestinian Refugee" was defined in resolution 194.

(COMMENT)

A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948 Is a General Assembly Resolution. It can only recommend measures but does not have the force of law.

Another thing you must consider is that → you cannot apply a law made in December to an action taken in May.

Article 24 • PART 3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court​

Non-retroactivity ratione personae​

​

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgment, the law more favorable to the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted shall apply.

I have noticed that many pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), anti-Jewish movements, other confrontational advocates, and antagonistic organizations opposed to the State of Israel sling that General Assembly Resolution as if it was a commandment carved in stone. It is just a recommendation.

Please read this carefully:

Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
​

Some might think that Arab Palestinians that advocate on behalf or vote for (in an election) a designated terrorist organization, constitutes a national security risk.

Yes → you can hang your hat on A/RES/194 (III) as some sort of deliverance, but it is not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948 Is a General Assembly Resolution. It can only recommend measures but does not have the force of law.

Resolution 194, like many General Assembly Resolutions, is based on already existing international law.

UN Resolution 242 states:

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

Resolution 242 did not make this up. This was reiterating already existing international law.

And this leads us to the never answered question: How much of Palestinian territory did Israel illegally acquire by war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Some might think that Arab Palestinians that advocate on behalf or vote for (in an election) a designated terrorist organization, constitutes a national security risk.

Hamas are not terrorists in Palestine where they were elected. They are only terrorists to the foreign name callers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Another thing you must consider is that → you cannot apply a law made in December to an action taken in May.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Who are refugees? And what about the occupation?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Resolution 194, like many General Assembly Resolutions, is based on already existing international law.

(COMMENT)

First, take notice that when this argument is used, such arguments rarely mention the source of this law (interpretation).

This statement is true. But what A/RES/194 (III) says is an "approximation" of what the Customary Law and Charter (law) actually says.

Article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant made it unlawful to wage war for the purpose of acquiring territory:

ARTICLE 10 League of Nations (LoN) Covenant​

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.​

League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document​

• Article 10, LoN Covenant was adopted in its current form as Article 2(4) UN Charter (1945):

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

UN Resolution 242 states: Emphasizingthe inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

Resolution 242 did not make this up. This was reiterating already existing international law.

(COMMENT)

Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (AKA "Land for Peace" Resolution)

In the last quarter of the 20th Century, the Drafters at different times made the intent of S/RES/242 clearer. This seemed to be necessary from the misinterpretations expressed by the anti-Israeli movements of that period. A compilation of these frank exchanges was assembled by CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis) in January 2007.

And this leads us to the never answered question: How much of Palestinian territory did Israel illegally acquire by war?

(COMMENT)

This is an interesting question...

You have been given the answer many times, but refuse to accept it because it does NOT fit your neat little pro-Arab Palestinian and anti-Israeli agenda.

Some would argue that Israel did not acquire any land by act or act of aggression.

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.​

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.​

Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.​

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.​

[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.​

The question to you is, do you cite an authority on the intent of S/RES/242 that takes legal precedents over that of the Authors? If you can, I would like to hear about it.

Article 22 • Part II General Principles of Criminal Law • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court​

Nullum crimen sine lege ​

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (AKA "Land for Peace" Resolution)

You took Resolution 242 beyond the scope of my post without addressing my post. You brought it into 1967 when my focus was 1948. I was using 242 as an example not as a basis for discussion.