Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

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

So, you believe that taking land by force is legal?

You are ducking me question.

(COMMENT)

I did not answer the question because the territory was not taken by force.

This is another phony leg that the Hostile Arab Palestinians like to rest upon.

Consider:

Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.​

Relative to the Law about the use of force, → what it actually says is:

​

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.

(IF-THEN #1) IF, as you claim, Palestine had borders from 1924, THEN it is a domestic issue and NOT a violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

(IF-THEN #2) IF, you claim the use of force by Israel against the Palestinians, THEN you are claiming that Israel is one State Party and Palestine is another State Party, thus the use of the Arab League Forces is in violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel."

You cannot have it both ways.

---

(THE ENTANGLED CLAIM)

However... it is a matter of record that "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed." (Memorandum "A") to A/AC.21/UK/42) The Arab Palestinians had not self-governing institution in 1948. In fact, until 1967, the entirety of the territory in dispute was under the control and leadership of either Israel or an Arab League party. SO! → It was never an act of one "State" (Israel) against the a Palestinian State, Israel but forces of the Arab League.

Further, soon after the Armistice came into force, the Gaza Strip came under an Egyptian Military Governorship, and the West Bank was Annexed by Jordan. So where are the Palestinians all this and what legitimacy do they have?

Even by 1988, when Jordan cut all ties with all holdings west of the Jordan River, the Arab Palestinians did not have a functioning government of the self-governing institutions to complete a "state." (Convention on Rights and Duties of a State)

( ≈ Ω )

II did not answer your question directly because it veered away from the central issues AND because I did not want to get it entangled with the other important issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

(IF-THEN #1) IF, as you claim, Palestine had borders from 1924, THEN it is a domestic issue and NOT a violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Palestine was attacked by foreign forces and lost 78% of its territory at the point of a gun.

 

[P F Tinmore]

thus the use of the Arab League Forces is in violation of the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel."

For one, no Arab country entered Israel.

For another, the 1948 war and the Nakba were two separate events.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, link.

You should be able to provide a link identifying sovereign territory maintained by the Pallys (the Arabs-Moslems who, as you know, occupied lands controlled by the Ottoman Turks.

As we know, no such territory soverjgn to the Arab-Moslem occupiers existed.

Link?

Bensouda posited that though they are not able to exercise their right to self-determination, Palestinians are the rightful sovereigns of the West Bank and Gaza, which is under Israeli occupation.

Could ICC try Palestinians while Israel gets away with murder?

Human Rights Watch frames armed resistance as "war crimes."

electronicintifada.net

All of Palestine before the Israeli conquest.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Palestine was attacked by foreign forces and lost 78% of its territory at the point of a gun.

(QUESTION)

What foreign forces?

When?

Basic Interrogatives.

For one, no Arab country entered Israel.

For another, the 1948 war and the Nakba were two separate events.

(REFERENCE)

November 29, 1947

--

General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of the Partition Plan.

(QUESTION)

I know you are imposing some kind of manipulative question, subject to many interpretations.

P: I was given the impression that Israel’s 1948 War of Independence was also know as “The Nakba.”​

Q: Please explain, what is the difference between the 1948 War and The Nakba?​

I believe that you are trying to separate the displacement of Arab Palestines (Nakba) from the from the 1948 Conflict (War for Independence). The Arab Palestinians were displace from one part of the trusteeship to another part. The Nakba was the initial catalyst for the conflict which was already decided upon by the Arab League. In the cable from Jordan to the UN, the King said: "we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin."

This was much the same the India-Pakistan Partition done also done in the 1946-48 timeframe (Hindu-Muslim divide).

This was an accepted practice at the time in order to facilitate self-government to both Hindu and Muslims.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P: I was given the impression that Israel’s 1948 War of Independence was also know as “The Nakba.”

You were probably also given the impression that:

• Five Arab armies attacked Israel.
• The refugees were the result of the1948 war.
• The Arabs lost that war.
• Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181.

All not true.

 

[Hollie]

You were probably also given the impression that:

• Five Arab armies attacked Israel.
• The refugees were the result of the1948 war.
• The Arabs lost that war.
• Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181.

All not true.

....except in the alternate reality of the Arabs-Moslems who want to rewrite history.

BTW, Res. 181 was never implemented, remember?

All those wars including 1948 and later waged and lost by the Arabs-Moslems are a lasting humiliation, right?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Q: Please explain, what is the difference between the 1948 War and The Nakba?

Sure.

The 1948 war began on May 15, 1948 when five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians. The players were the Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt.

The fighting ended in less than a year when a UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers.
-----------------
The Nakba began in December of 1947 when Zionist forces attack Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes. The players are the Zionist/Israeli forces and Palestinian civilians. That conflict has never ended. It continues to today.
------------------
So, we have two different times, two different players, two different goals, and two different results.

 

[P F Tinmore]

....except in the alternate reality of the Arabs-Moslems who want to rewrite history.

BTW, Res. 181 was never implemented, remember?

All those wars including 1948 and later waged and lost by the Arabs-Moslems are a lasting humiliation, right?

BTW, Res. 181 was never implemented, remember?

Indeed, that is why item 4 is not true.

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, that is why item 4 is not true.

Indeed, the Arab-Moslem humiliation of lost wars of aggression, political, economic and social failures will result in the lawless territorial occupation we see as the two competing islamic terrorist franchises struggle for power.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Settler Colonialism in Palestine​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nadia Hijab on Moving Beyond Statehood Debates and on to How We Get There​

 

[RoccoR]

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

You were probably also given the impression that:

• Five Arab armies attacked Israel.
• The refugees were the result of the1948 war.
• The Arabs lost that war.
• Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181.

All not true.

(COMMENT)
.

◈ Israel appears to hold a deep concern that a workable solution to the conflict has yet to be achieved.​

​

◈ Israel is concerned that the Ramallah and Gaza Governments are intentionally avoiding any coherent disputed resolution process.​

​

◈ Israel is very concerned that both the Ramallah and Gaza Government have chosen Armed Struggle and Violence - that resistance and jihad will remain a legitimate right of the Arab Palestinian - over and above good faith negotiations, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or international judicial settlement.​

​

◈ Yes, the entire West Bank and Jerusalem ("beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181") became a protectorate of the Israelis after the Jordanian Disengagement of 1988. This was later solidified in the Peace Treaty of 1994 (Article III and Annex I).​

Rarely does a nation ever truly win or lose a "war." If combat forces engaged, and casualties were incurred, there was a cost. Clearly, the Arab Palestinians did not win, lose, or liberate any territory unless you count Area "A" and some control over Area "B." But that was because the PLO under Yasser Arafat made some breakthroughs and successes that the Ramallah and Gaza Governments have not been able to duplicate.

You indicate that the statement: "Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181" is NOT true. This is a trick question. Manipulation for propaganda purposes. I would say the syntax is fouled-up.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You indicate that the statement: "Israel gained control of land beyond that was allotted to it by resolution 181" is NOT true. This is a trick question. Manipulation for propaganda purposes. I would say the syntax is fouled-up.

There is no trick. There are two parts to this statement

1. It is implied that Israel already had land that was given to it by Resolution 181. Not true. Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no allotted territory. Israel had no land.
2. Israel won "more" land in a defensive war with the "Arabs." WOW! Israel was not attacked by five Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not win the 1948 war. The land that Israel claims to heve won was not part of the territory of any of the five Arab countries in the 1948 war

 

[Hollie]

There is no trick. There are two parts to this statement

1. It is implied that Israel already had land that was given to it by Resolution 181. Not true. Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no allotted territory. Israel had no land.
2. Israel won "more" land in a defensive war with the "Arabs." WOW! Israel was not attacked by five Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not win the 1948 war. The land that Israel claims to heve won was not part of the territory of any of the five Arab countries in the 1948 war

Is that was the Imam teaches during Friday prayers at your madrassah?

 

[RoccoR]

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

There is no trick. There are two parts to this statement

1. It is implied that Israel already had land that was given to it by Resolution 181. Not true. Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no allotted territory. Israel had no land.
2. Israel won "more" land in a defensive war with the "Arabs." WOW! Israel was not attacked by five Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not win the 1948 war. The land that Israel claims to heve won was not part of the territory of any of the five Arab countries in the 1948 war

(COMMENT)
.
(Q 1) A/RES/181(II) was NOT an international "grant" or an after-action "bequest." A/RES/181(II) was non-binding on any member. It was a recommendation. The Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee had the options to:

✪. Accept opportunities​

​

✪. Reject options​

​

✪. Implement parts and ignore or discard the remainder.​

​

It turns out that the Jewish/Israeli Leadership made better choices, pursued fruitful options, and generally followed a more successful set of paths. The Jewish Agency made some very productive turns at building self-governing institutions. The Arab Higher Committee rejected every invitation to follow suit. The Jewish Agency/Israeli Government developed a greater return on their investments (time and energies).

◈ The General Assembly may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.​

​

◈ The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations.​

◈ But the General Assembly cannot "demand or require to do anything. The General Assembly may discuss almost any topic or request information on any issue (with a few exceptions). The General Assembly is not supposed to discuss any topic or take any action that might become a danger to peace and security. I cannot think of an exception that has not already been broken concerning the Question of Palestine.​

(Q 2) Well, as I said on several occasions. In the latter part of the 20th Century through the current two decades of the 21st Century, the terms "wins and losses" in the context in relationship to International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIAC) are obsolete terms. To be more accurate terms are "victory" (decisive or indecisive) - "inconclusive" - "defeats" (Pyrrhus victories) which become more descriptive. Israel did not, per se, win any territory, but they did gain territory largely through serious mistakes made by the Arab Palestinians and the Jordanians - which the Israels were able to capitalize on.

( ∑ )

Israel came into existence through "SELF-DETERMINATION."

The Israelis made a series of good investments (Time and Energy) and followed some effective recommendations. And ultimately have become the most developed and productive nation in the Middle East North African Region. Whereas the Leadership of the Arab Palestinians sunk faster than a ship's anchor.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

(Q 1) A/RES/181(II) was NOT an international "grant" or an after-action "bequest." A/RES/181(II) was non-binding on any member. It was a recommendation. The Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee had the options to:

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

You posted all of that and missed the points in my post.
---------------------
Think of Resolution 181 as a proposed treaty. If both sides had signed it, both sides would be obligated to follow the tenets of 181. Both side did not sign it so all we have is a worthless piece of paper.

The poison pill was that the Palestinians would cede half of their territory to colonial settlers. The Palestinians, like anyone else in the world, rejected that "opportunity."

 

[RoccoR]

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

Why should I think if A/RES/181(II) as a "proposed" Treaty?

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

You posted all of that and missed the points in my post.
---------------------
Think of Resolution 181 as a proposed treaty. If both sides had signed it, both sides would be obligated to follow the tenets of 181. Both side did not sign it so all we have is a worthless piece of paper.

The poison pill was that the Palestinians would cede half of their territory to colonial settlers. The Palestinians, like anyone else in the world, rejected that "opportunity."

(COMMENT)
.
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was an Investigative Committee. Itwas never intended to create any such political or diplomatic document that could be construed as something even remotely similar to a Treaty.

4. The Special Committee shall conduct investigations in Palestine and wherever it may deem useful, receive and examine written or oral testimony, whichever it may consider appropriate in each case, from the mandatory Power, from representatives of the population of Palestine, from Governments and from such organizations and individuals as it may deem necessary;​

​

5. The Special Committee shall give most careful consideration to the religious interests in Palestine of Islam, Judaism and Christianity;​

​

6. The Special Committee shall prepare a report to the General Assembly and shall submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine;​

​

And remember. The Arab Palestinians were under a delusion that the Territory that had been subject to the Mandate wass promised to them. It was not their country. It could have been choped up into three pieces if the Allied Powers thought it necessary.

OH wait. The Allied Powers ddid leave the trustee commiittee a Mandate territory that was Jewish, one Hashemite, and the third rejected by the Arab Higher Committee.

But the Recommendation A/RES/181 (II) was never intended to be an obligation in any fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

But the Recommendation A/RES/181 (II) was never intended to be an obligation in any fashion.

So they could both sign it then they could both ignore it like it didn't happen?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Obligation that wasn't there.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you got it; or, are getting there.

So they could both sign it then they could both ignore it like it didn't happen?

(COMMENT)
.
They don't sign it at all. The recommendation is not a requirement or application.

They either follow the recommendation, reject the recommendation, or choose the pieces they want to implement. And they can do that together or individually. They can coordinate or proceed at their own pace.

But the only requirement are those that pertain to membership. And even those are flexible. There are no obligations and the path taken does not affect the civil and political rights of the day; including the Right to Self-Determination. But neither are they to interfere with the Rights of the other.

The A/RES/181 (II) represents the consensus of the Membership of the day that had an interest in the decision. Those that had no interest simply abstain.
.

Most Respectfully,
R