Palestinians signed to join Rome Statute.

[aris2chat]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions. The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  
  

There is the issue of state. Is the PA actually a state? What are it's territory? Both issues need to be resolved through negotiations with Israel. Till these issues are settled the land could be Israel and any thing that happens on it is a matter for Israeli courts.
There is also the issue that if investigations and resolutions in Israel court are made the ICC really has no involvement. It might not be the resolution that some palestinians might like but Israel does investigate itself with there is an issue of possible violations.
PA courts do not, nor dies hamas, investigate and resolve most of it's possible violations. They have on a few occasions but the vast majority are celebrated instead.
Israel is not a signatory of the ICC so there is little that can be done against any subject of a case if they remain in Israel or have diplomatic protection. Even after they leave office Interpol can only "touch" them if they leave Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the

Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

Armed struggle does not mean terrorism and targeting civilians, doing so will result in reprisals leading to the deaths of those engaged in armed struggle.
No legal duty for Israel to do anything about the 50,000 Palestinians that fled the fighting, or the 500,000 that joined in the fighting and were pushed back to land designated as Palestine. Right of return is not a legal requirement.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the

Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

Armed struggle does not mean terrorism and targeting civilians, doing so will result in reprisals leading to the deaths of those engaged in armed struggle.
No legal duty for Israel to do anything about the 50,000 Palestinians that fled the fighting, or the 500,000 that joined in the fighting and were pushed back to land designated as Palestine. Right of return is not a legal requirement.

Then why does the UN call Palestinian return a right in multiple resolutions?

 

[aris2chat]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the

Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

Armed struggle does not mean terrorism and targeting civilians, doing so will result in reprisals leading to the deaths of those engaged in armed struggle.
No legal duty for Israel to do anything about the 50,000 Palestinians that fled the fighting, or the 500,000 that joined in the fighting and were pushed back to land designated as Palestine. Right of return is not a legal requirement.

There are millions of refugees in the region and around the world that will never be able to "return" to their life and homes as they once were. Why should palestinians feel their are different when they did not even have a country or identity till the mandate ended. Most of them left at the urging of their arab neighbors. They are treated less than animals in some cases trapped in camps and relying on services from the UN. If they had tried to make a new life elsewhere it might have been different for them. Some managed to make it out and go west with their family and are doing well now.
It is long over due for arab countries to settle the refugees in areas within their own countries where there is an under population and the potential for the creation of jobs.
The only true refugees among those in the camps are perhaps that who were born in the land they left and that want to return if there is family still in the area to sponsor them. Those born in the camps have no real claim to return. If they want to request immigration to become Israelis, they can apply. If they have any criminal record or ties to terrorism they will be rejected. The will not be palestinians in Israel, they would have to learn hebrew and if of age do some type of service to the country.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the

Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

Armed struggle does not mean terrorism and targeting civilians, doing so will result in reprisals leading to the deaths of those engaged in armed struggle.
No legal duty for Israel to do anything about the 50,000 Palestinians that fled the fighting, or the 500,000 that joined in the fighting and were pushed back to land designated as Palestine. Right of return is not a legal requirement.

There are millions of refugees in the region and around the world that will never be able to "return" to their life and homes as they once were. Why should palestinians feel their are different when they did not even have a country or identity till the mandate ended. Most of them left at the urging of their arab neighbors. They are treated less than animals in some cases trapped in camps and relying on services from the UN. If they had tried to make a new life elsewhere it might have been different for them. Some managed to make it out and go west with their family and are doing well now.
It is long over due for arab countries to settle the refugees in areas within their own countries where there is an under population and the potential for the creation of jobs.
The only true refugees among those in the camps are perhaps that who were born in the land they left and that want to return if there is family still in the area to sponsor them. Those born in the camps have no real claim to return. If they want to request immigration to become Israelis, they can apply. If they have any criminal record or ties to terrorism they will be rejected. The will not be palestinians in Israel, they would have to learn hebrew and if of age do some type of service to the country.

Why should palestinians feel their are different when they did not even have a country or identity till the mandate ended.​

Not true.

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the

Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

Armed struggle does not mean terrorism and targeting civilians, doing so will result in reprisals leading to the deaths of those engaged in armed struggle.
No legal duty for Israel to do anything about the 50,000 Palestinians that fled the fighting, or the 500,000 that joined in the fighting and were pushed back to land designated as Palestine. Right of return is not a legal requirement.

Then why does the UN call Palestinian return a right in multiple resolutions?

Because it doesn't, it says that it is part of the negotiations dealing with peace. The UN can not force any right of return

Right of return - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom:.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it. A list of those countries can be found at:[2]

By contrast the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship:[3]

 

[Phoenall]

Jroc, et al,

Well, this is --- of course --- one option. But it is probably not the best strategy to take given the potential for adverse consequences.

(Reuters) - The International Criminal Court opened an inquiry into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories, thrusting it into one of the world's most chronic, heated conflicts and opening a path to possible charges against Israelis or Palestinians.

In a statement on Friday, prosecutors said they would examine "in full independence and impartiality" crimes that may have occurred since June 13 last year. This allows the court to delve into the war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza in July-August 2014 during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed.
SOURCE: News Article BY THOMAS ESCRITT AND ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AMSTERDAM Fri Jan 16, 2015

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, opens a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine
Today, Friday, 16 January 2015, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

The Prosecutor's decision follows the Government of Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015 and its declaration of 1 January 2015, lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute – the Court's founding treaty – accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014."

SOURCE: ICC-OTP-20150116-PR1083
SOURCE: Declaration of Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 31 December 2014
​

Israel is not a member and should ignore the ICC all together

(OBSERVATION)

To ignore the processes of an Article 53 international preliminary investigation (something similar to a Grand Jury Investigation) is never a wise strategy.

The Palestinian joined the ICC with a Jurisdictional acceptance date of 13 June, 2014. That is not a random date. There is a reason for that specific date; something that the Palestinians are concerned about. (Inquiring minds might ask, what the significance is behind that date?)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis need (just in the opinion of this layman) to setup several different legal teams:

• One Team to prepare to predict and prepare to defend against against specific war crime charges.
• One Team to collect and collate defense evidence and documentation for open presentation, to include the a writ ordering a UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) to depositions and attendance before the court. This would also include the material evidence of provocation for the events, the material collected relevant to conflict, and open source material of Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) admissions of guilt, collaboration and classified material substantiating the Unity Government strategy and policies pertaining to jihad and armed aggression.
• One Team to investigate and prepare charges (where warranted) against UNRWA and Unity Government (HAMAS and Fatah) personalities.

The Israelis might also consider the assembly of a special investigative team to interview UN Leadership Personalities to determine the preconceived notions on the UN position of Palestinian hostile actions.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians claim that they have the legal right to engage in hostile activities, outside the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and use threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, which normally constitutes a violation of international law and the

Charter of the United Nations --- as a means of settling territorial issues and occupation disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

Armed struggle does not mean terrorism and targeting civilians, doing so will result in reprisals leading to the deaths of those engaged in armed struggle.
No legal duty for Israel to do anything about the 50,000 Palestinians that fled the fighting, or the 500,000 that joined in the fighting and were pushed back to land designated as Palestine. Right of return is not a legal requirement.

There are millions of refugees in the region and around the world that will never be able to "return" to their life and homes as they once were. Why should palestinians feel their are different when they did not even have a country or identity till the mandate ended. Most of them left at the urging of their arab neighbors. They are treated less than animals in some cases trapped in camps and relying on services from the UN. If they had tried to make a new life elsewhere it might have been different for them. Some managed to make it out and go west with their family and are doing well now.
It is long over due for arab countries to settle the refugees in areas within their own countries where there is an under population and the potential for the creation of jobs.
The only true refugees among those in the camps are perhaps that who were born in the land they left and that want to return if there is family still in the area to sponsor them. Those born in the camps have no real claim to return. If they want to request immigration to become Israelis, they can apply. If they have any criminal record or ties to terrorism they will be rejected. The will not be palestinians in Israel, they would have to learn hebrew and if of age do some type of service to the country.

Why should palestinians feel their are different when they did not even have a country or identity till the mandate ended.​

Not true.

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

Who signed the treaty for and on behalf of the Palestinians, were is the treaty detailing the capital city, leaders, monetary unit, religion etc. The mandate did not bring about a Palestinian nation at all, in fact it did the opposite by not mentioning it

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

Do you mean like:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 ​

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

Rocco, here is where you get into false premise territory. You assume that Israel has territorial integrity. It is Palestine that has the right to territorial integrity as stated above. There is no right to the territorial integrity of land you occupy.

One of the most important problems which must be cleared up be-
fore a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied
territory and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel​

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

Indeed, Rocco does post links to all the illegal external interference.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a good point.

​

(COMMENT)

This was written a decade before the Palestinian People Declared Independence in 1988. At that time, they were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and under Jordanian rule. At that time, it was not Israel that obstructed "independence, territorial integrity, and national unity;" as demonstrated when Jordan cut ties with the West Bank and the Palestinians Declared Independence without interference. You will take notice that in A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 (which Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;) and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; and Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations;) there is not mention of "recalling" A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978.

In this observation you will notice that in both the November Affirmation and the December Decision that Resolution A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations) is recalled (not A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978). Without regard to what A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 may be interpreted to imply --- the non-binding Resolution does not take precedence over the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law. UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001), which is binding, (which Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;) does Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its Declaration on Principles of International Law of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV) namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts.

If there is a "false premise" here --- it is the idea that the Palestinians have been given such special dispensation to violate the Hague Regulation, the Geneva Conventions, or Customary International Humanitarian Law; and the laws against terrorism.

First: the critical links between development and security. Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts. At the same time, we must remove the conditions that feed the problem. Terrorism festers where conflicts are endemic and where human rights, human dignity and human life are not protected and impunity prevails. SG/SM/14764-SC/10883​

The Palestinians, no matter what cover they choose, cannot operate independent of the law, against Israeli civilians and where the human rights, human dignity and human life of the Israeli are not protected and impunity prevails.

(COMMENT)

This is more of the same 1949 (more than half a century ago) era thinking; hardly relevant today. This was written before the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, and the Palestinians often forget that:

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution;​

With very rare exceptions, there are no Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank or Gaza Strip after 16 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Annex III, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

When the PLO (designated the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, by the Arab League) declared independence and established the State of Palestine, each Palestinian acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality the State of Palestine as acknowledged by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988); no longer falling under the UN definition of Refugee.

To support the Palestinian insistence (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that Israel has no "territorial integrity" is simply any way of promoting a continuation of hostilities. Whether we view it though the lenses of the Palestinian National Charter, the HAMAS Covenant, or the more recent Political Position Paper by HAMAS, the language is the same.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

This is a variation on the theme that: Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine; because there is no territorial entity with borders called Israel.

First, let's understand what the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) says:

Key Facts​

• 
  
  
  • • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
    • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
    • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​

Now there is a valid argument concerning Area "C" as stipulated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OSLO Accord II A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

As far as basic recognition is concerned, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People (the PLO) Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat relative to the mutual Israel-PLO Recognition and the "calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation."

I believe that there are many pro-Palestinians today the which nothing more than to continue the armed struggle that existed prior to the Oslo Accords and the mutual recognition. Clear, the Unity Government is struggling to maintain a common political policy, with HAMAS not recognizing Israel and Fatah waffling on the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

Indeed, Rocco does post links to all the illegal external interference.

Sure he does Tinmore, whatever you say

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out.

The West Bank became part of Jordan.

Did the Palestinians ratify that? That was after 80-some Palestinian leaders declared independence in all of Palestine in 1948.

PLO designated the leader of Palestine.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

...and again in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 (which Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

1988 declaration of independence by the PLO.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The PA created by foreigners with rules by foreigners.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Recognition of Israel by foreign appointed leaders.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

The signing of Oslo.

Did the Palestinians ratify that?

Where is the Palestinians right to self determination when they have had no say in anything since their creation? (Except rejecting resolution 181 that they had every right to do.)

The first chance they had to make their own decision was the elections of 2006 and we have been kicking their ass ever since because they did not elect the foreign approved stooges.

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

Indeed, Rocco does post links to all the illegal external interference.

Sure he does Tinmore, whatever you say

I posted a list.

You have refuted none of them.

 

[toastman]

"Rocco, you present your standard laundry list of shit but you always leave something out"

You're clearly frustrated because Rocco , once AGAIN, proved you to be wrong. And once again, you responded to his post by not even remotely refuting what he said. You mad??

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.

Rocco refutes all your lies by providing valid links and excellent proof. So naturally, you would make a comment like that.

You find him a threat because you can't get people to believe your propaganda as long as he is here.

When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

Indeed, Rocco does post links to all the illegal external interference.

Sure he does Tinmore, whatever you say

I posted a list.

You have refuted none of them.

List of what? You posted jibberish and din't even come close to refuting Rocco;s post. Your response was nothing but one big duck...
And again, when someone refutes your post, which happens every day, you refuse to admit it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Pfffft, Rocco posts smoke.

Sorry Rocco, nothing personal.
When I mention illegal external interference, his response is a list of things that foreigners did. That proves my point more than his.

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

Indeed, Rocco does post links to all the illegal external interference.

Sure he does Tinmore, whatever you say

I posted a list.

You have refuted none of them.

List of what? You posted jibberish and din't even come close to refuting Rocco;s post. Your response was nothing but one big duck...
And again, when someone refutes your post, which happens every day, you refuse to admit it.

A song and dance does not a refute make.

 

[toastman]

The difference is that he posts links to back up his points while you post the 'Tinmore version' or 'Tinmore pre requisites'.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it when you clearly have been refuted.
It's almost like you're afraid to admit that you're wrong because you think people here will make fun of you or something. Quite the opposite however, most people, including myself, would respect you if you did so.

Indeed, Rocco does post links to all the illegal external interference.

Sure he does Tinmore, whatever you say

I posted a list.

You have refuted none of them.

List of what? You posted jibberish and din't even come close to refuting Rocco;s post. Your response was nothing but one big duck...
And again, when someone refutes your post, which happens every day, you refuse to admit it.

A song and dance does not a refute make.

Then why did you give Rocco just that in your response?