Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

Unraveling the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What is America doing in the Mideast? - Phyllis Bennis​

 

[RoccoR]

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

From the moment that Israel was established, the Arab Palestinians have been a hostile adversary, for more than 70 years now.

The Nakba was (is) a violation of Palestinian rights and a violation of the UN Charter.

(COMMENT)

This is the question.

The Israelis are defending their sovereign territory.

When I see the hostile actions by the Arab Palestinians, I see the Arab Palestinians from this perspective:

◈ The Arab Palestinians have consistently attempted to overrun the establishment of Israel compromising the territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Israel.​

​

◈ The Arab Palestinians intentionally ignore disputes resolution processes being used to resolve by peaceful means in such a manner that peace security is reestablished.​

​

◈ The Arab Palestinian commit offenses which are solely intended to harm the Israelis and members of the police and security forces and punishable under Customary and International humanitarian Law.​

​

◈ The Arab Palestinians action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.​

​

◈ For th Arab Palestinians they consider that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them are deemed null and void.​

​

◈ The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal. Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. The Arab Palestinian considers their territorial boundaries the entirety of the territory that was administered by the British Mandate.​

​

◈ The Hostile Arab Palestinian know it is prohibited by law, call for conflict, incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.​

These are just some of the vast numbers of characteristics the Arab Palestinians reveal daily. They are committing Criminal Acts directed against Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

OK, I'm off the soapbox.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, they did not say "except Palestine" even once.

Nice deflection, though.

Odd that the authors of the Treaty of Lausanne forgot to include a single statement about the invention of Pally’land. That seems either careless on their part, or, the Treaty was never intended to invent such a country.

Do you have a YouTube video with a different version of the Treaty of Lausanne you’re not sharing?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Israelis are defending their sovereign territory.

Do you mean the unceded Palestinian territory, inside Palestine's international borders where the Zionists kicked out the Palestinians and stole everything including robbing the banks.

Is that the "sovereign territory" that Israel is defending?

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal. Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. The Arab Palestinian considers their territorial boundaries the entirety of the territory that was administered by the British Mandate.

You can forget about the Mandate. It had nothing to do with Palestinian territory.

Why do you always bring up the Mandate? Are you trying to confuse the people?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Behind the World's Back | Ethnic Cleansing of Sheikh Jarrah, Palestine​

 

[Hollie]

You can forget about the Mandate. It had nothing to do with Palestinian territory.

Why do you always bring up the Mandate? Are you trying to confuse the people?

You base your conclusion on a false premise

You don't seem to understand that lands of the former Ottoman Turks was never Pal land. The Turks had sovereign control of the territory. The Pals never did. There was no Pal territory.

You are confused, not "the people".

 

[RoccoR]

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

Do you mean the unceded Palestinian territory, inside Palestine's international borders where the Zionists kicked out the Palestinians and stole everything including robbing the banks.

Is that the "sovereign territory" that Israel is defending?

(COMMENT)

You use this language, in a most absurd way.

Who did "you" expect to yield the territory and to whom?

In the Treaty of Lausanne (ToL), in which the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic wrote the final chapter to the Great War between the two said:

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.

SOURCE: Hellenic Resources Network

The Turkish Republic DID NOT renounce "all rights and title" in favor of the Arab Palestinians. The Turkish Republic relinquish the "rights and title" to the Allied Powers."

Where did the residents of the Enemy Occupied Territory have any say over the sovereignty of the territory? (RHETORICAL) Oh, that is correct, the residents of the Enemy Occupied Territory were not a party to the Treaty. They DID NOT have any rights and title to the territory beforehand before the Great War and the residents of the Enemy Occupied Territory DID NOT have any rights and title to the territory at any period after the conclusion of the war. The future of these territories is being settled by the Allied Powers (the parties concerned).

If any party had the "rights and title" to the territory, it certainly was NOT the Arab Palestinians.

You can forget about the Mandate. It had nothing to do with Palestinian territory.

Why do you always bring up the Mandate? Are you trying to confuse the people?

(COMMENT)

I try to use the same language as does the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). And HoAP has clearly said in Article 2 of the Palestinian National Charter:

"Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate,
is an indivisible territorial unit."​

I assume you are not Challenging the National Charter. I assume you are not reinterpreting the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate,
is an indivisible territorial unit."

"During the Mandate" was merely a period in history. It had nothing to do with territory. In fact the Mandate was forbidden from doing anything with the territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who did "you" expect to yield the territory and to whom?

The Treaty of Lausanne said that the territory was transferred to the states.

 

[RoccoR]

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

The Treaty of Lausanne said that the territory was transferred to the states.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty said no such thing. I just quoted the applicable Territorial Clause from the Treaty to you. (See Posting #2745)

I think you are trying to twist the meaning of Part II • NATIONALITY • Article 30 and substitute it for a Part I • TERRITORIAL CLAUSES • Article 16 which addresses the territory of Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921.

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921." From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britain (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."

"During the Mandate" was merely a period in history. It had nothing to do with territory. In fact the Mandate was forbidden from doing anything with the territory.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a bit wrong. The Mandatory had limitations, and (for instance) was not allowed to lease or sell any portion of the territory, for the most part, the Administration of Palestine, (the government) had otherwise sweeping powers.

There will always be a place that can be described as "the territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine." And that territory was defined by the Palestine Order in Council (1922).

Do NOT confuse the meaning of "Palestine." Palestine had many different faces over the century that followed the San Remo Convention. This was covered pretty well in Posting #9369 and demonstrated what the word "Palestine" meant in certain time periods. Posting #2746 explains what the boundaries are today.

You keep saying, "Palestine" has recognized international borders. That is actually incorrect. At the time when the Mandate for Palestine terminated, the UN Trustee System picked up. And then, the National Council for the Jewish State and through self-determination established the Jewish State called Israel. When the Arab-Israeli Conflict emerged, all the demarcations were in flux until The Kingdom of Jordan annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem in April 1950, using the Armistice Line as its only limitation. That demarcation became a hard border with the sovereignty of Israel on one side and the sovereignty of Jordan on the other. In 1967, the military buildup triggered a reopening of the original 1948 Conflict.

Now I know that you are going to say something like the April 1950 Jordanian Annexation did NOT happen because the UN DID NOT approve. That actually changed nothing. The Occupation and Annexation of the territory did NOT require UN approval.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Now I know that you are going to say something like the April 1950 Jordanian Annexation did NOT happen because the UN DID NOT approve. That actually changed nothing. The Occupation and Annexation of the territory did NOT require UN approval.

Annexing occupied territory is a violation of internal law.

This refers to a unilateral act of a State through which it proclaims its sovereignty over the territory of another State. It usually involves the threat or use of force, as the annexing State usually occupies the territory in question in order to assert its sovereignty over it. Annexation amounts to an act of aggression, forbidden by international law.

Annexation (prohibition of) | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

casebook.icrc.org

 

[P F Tinmore]

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries.

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Dismantling Myths on Israel-Palestine​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Annexing occupied territory is a violation of internal law.

(COMMENT)

These are just a couple of examples.

◈ The United State and the Kingdom of Hawaii​

◈ Saudi Arabia and the Kingdoms of Hejaz and Nejd​

◈ The Chinese and Tibet​

◈ The Russians and Crimea​

Whatever you think the applicable law was in 1950, makes no difference one way or the other. The reality is what the countries of the world actually exercise and tolerate.

Just as a side note: The annexation of Tibet by China in 1951; happened a year after the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.

Whatever you think the international standard was, does not appear to be the rule that the world worked.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

(COMMENT)

That does not mean the territory was transferred to the people.

It is the policy on the matter of stateless people.

Secondly, the creation of the states relative to the Mandate had not been determined in 1924. So the Allied Powers devised administrative governments to fill the void. I can hardly believe you quote the Article on Nationality but ignore the Article on Territory; even after I predicted your attempt to use Article 30 in Posting #2771.

You cannot substitute a Nationality Clause for a Territorial Cause.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

These are just a couple of examples.

◈ The United State and the Kingdom of Hawaii​

◈ Saudi Arabia and the Kingdoms of Hejaz and Nejd​

◈ The Chinese and Tibet​

◈ The Russians and Crimea​

Whatever you think the applicable law was in 1950, makes no difference one way or the other. The reality is what the countries of the world actually exercise and tolerate.

Just as a side note: The annexation of Tibet by China in 1951; happened a year after the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.

Whatever you think the international standard was, does not appear to be the rule that the world worked.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still illegal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What YOU think s Law and What is the Reality
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

That does not mean the territory was transferred to the people.

It is the policy on the matter of stateless people.

Secondly, the creation of the states relative to the Mandate had not been determined in 1924. So the Allied Powers devised administrative governments to fill the void. I can hardly believe you quote the Article on Nationality but ignore the Article on Territory; even after I predicted your attempt to use Article 30 in Posting #2771.

You cannot substitute a Nationality Clause for a Territorial Cause.

Most Respectfully,
R

That does not mean the territory was transferred to the people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinian Nakba: What Happened in 1948 and Why It Still Matters​

 

[P F Tinmore]

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine with Professor Ilan Pappé​