Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[Billo_Really]

Not true. You have introduced arguments from the 1948 war, from 1945 and from the pre-Mandate period. But, still, I appreciate your clarity. Any further presentation, by you, of arguments from times other than 1967 can be dismissed as being inconsistent with your own claim.

However, given that Israel HAD sovereign title, in law, to the territory in its entirety; and given that the conflict between 1948 and 1967 and right up to 1988 when Palestine declared independence, was between Israel and the States of Jordan and Egypt and has since been resolved; and given that there is no possible legal claim for an existing international boundary (other than Oslo) your claim is without merit.

You are taking me out of context. Show me the post you are referring to and I'll comment on them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The now called Palestinians, can sit at a table as they were supposed to since the Oslo Accords, and negotiate with Israel.

There is nothing to negotiate. Israel wants the Palestinians to negotiate away their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not negotiable. Any treaty or agreement that violates the rights of the people is invalid.

Then why aren't the Arab Palestinians at war with Jordan to regain that lost territory? How did their inalienable rights to Jordan (part of Palestine) get lost?

Unlike Palestine, the people who lived there are still living there.

 

[Billo_Really]

Aren't you one of those who insist that Gazans and Palestinians have access to lethal weapons in order to 'defend themselves'? I'm smelling the rank and nasty odor of double standards here.

Objectively, do people have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves or their territory? Yes or no?

If YOUR standard is that lethal force can only be used when life is immanently threatened then you SHOULD be championing an end to rockets, mortars, suicide bombings, rock-throwing, stabbings, car-rammings, fire-bombings, wire-cutting, fence-crossing etc, etc, etc.

So why aren't you?

There is a big difference between self defense and murder.

 

[Billo_Really]

I assure you, having just lived there for three weeks, Israel most certainly does have it. Why shouldn't it be Israeli property? Its a Jewish Holy Place, in an ancient Jewish city, on land going back nearly 4000 years in Jewish history. Why shouldn't it be Israeli property?

Because you took it in the '67 war and you can't hold onto land seized in a war. How many times do I have to tell you this? You're in violation of international law.

Do you know, one of the reasons IHL was created, was to prevent another Holocaust. So every time you thumb your nose at IHL, you are virtually shitting on all the victims of the Holocaust and making their deaths to be in vain.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Question? Does Israel say that the Arab Palestinians cannot leave the West Bank? OR Does Israel say that the Arab Palestinians cannot enter Israel?

THERE is NO..... Military Occupation....

Except in your mind.

If there is no military occupation, why can't Gazans leave? If there is no military occupation, then what are the over 300 roadblocks and checkpoints restricting Palestinian movement?

You're not making the world a better place by lying about the facts.

(COMMENT)

Yes, there are Military Police units that maintain some of the security control points.

The limitations imposed on the Arab Palestinian movement in any given area response to terrorist attacks --- and --- to prevent Israelis from enetering certain West Bank cities, town and villages.

This is all part and parcel of the Article 43 responsibilities.

The lifting and end to such security measures is based on the reduction in threat. Since the threat has only gone up, there will probably not be a reduction in security countermeasures.

Most Respectfully,
R

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, toomuchtime_, et al,

Neither the Palestine Order in Council, the Palestine Citizenship Order, or the Palestine Election Order granted any control over the Government of Palestine. The Government of Palestine was in the hands of the British High Commissioner.

Your route is to rewrite the Mandates, all of them, and rewrite history.

Noted.

If the Allied victorious forces of WWI did not have any rights to any and all of the Ottoman Empire, than none of the other three Mandates are valid.

Goodbye Iraq

Goodbye Syria

Goodbye Lebanon


Now we can go back to the topic of this thread about the Arab Palestinians needing to move on and accept a Peace treaty with Israel in this day and age.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?
Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 192625
Copy Right: Government Of Palestine 1924 Early & Rare Emergency Laissez Passer
​

Our Friend "P F Tinmore" really believes that there is this huge conspiracy to ignore Palestinian Citizenship, the nation, and the sovereignty to the territory. But you will be hard pressed to convience him that the citizenship to Palestine in 1924 did not relate to an autonomous government.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the change was with the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

This is just too funny.

The Israelis of the Settlements will always be under Israeli Law (as directed by the civil administration) until the final negotiated agreement is established.

There's not going to be any negotiation, the settlements are illegal.

(COMMENT)

Then, the likelihood of a change to the status quo is remote.

You will not see a formal declaration of Martial Law, and the Arab Palestinians are not under anything like Martial Law.

Then what are the over 300 checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank for?

(COMMENT)

Article 43 security measures in the face of continuing threats by Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most of the time, when the media reports a clash with the IDF, they are actually misidentifying or confusing the Israeli Border Police with the IDF.

I don't care if it is Mother Theresa, IDF snipers are shooting unarmed Palestinian's and journalists with big media badges on their chest.

(COMMENT)

HAMAS operatives may not expect to find a shield in the use of "PRESS" Corps patches. HAMAS has a well-established history of hiding behind protected persons that would otherwise be immune from fire.

Once the post-confrontation investigation starts, there will be (in all likelihood) plenty of HD Video made available showing details of the confrontation and the facial recognition of perpetrators.

That little rabble-rouser Ahed Tamimi is a puppet Palestinian activist being used to induce confrontations between Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Police of the Civil Administration for the media value.

That's a 15-year-old girl (who's brother you murdered in cold blood), that you have imprisoned for slapping a member of the IDF (who was wearing body armour). You go to hell!

(COMMENT)

Not the IDF, but Border Police. And Police all around the world wear body armor. Hell, I've worn body armor with ceramic ballistic plates. BUT the wearing of body armor does not grant the perpetrator special permission or right to assault a police officer without facing repercussions. In fact, in most places in the world, the assault on a police officer or a member of the security services (body armor or not) is cause for a greater penalty.

In many places in the world, there are two legal positions that are obviously not a standard in the Middle East.

• Parents can be held criminally liable if they have not fulfilled their parental duty to keep their kids from breaking the law.
• Any adult, may be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor if the adult encourages or induces the minor to engage in criminal activity.​

In fact, in some cases, there may be a prosecutorial decision to release the child and prosecute the adult; or to prosecute both for their part in the criminal event.

Most Respectfully,
R

An occupational force cannot claim self defense. End the occupation and you won't need "counter measures".

 

[Billo_Really]

Too bad Arafat did not have the brains NOT TO start the intifadas and that way putting an end for the people in Gaza having good jobs in Israel, and education, etc.

They are on their own now, except for the health care which Israel will still allow.

That is what happens to those who chose war.

According to the Red Cross and Physicians without borders, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

 

[Hollie]

Too bad Arafat did not have the brains NOT TO start the intifadas and that way putting an end for the people in Gaza having good jobs in Israel, and education, etc.

They are on their own now, except for the health care which Israel will still allow.

That is what happens to those who chose war.

According to the Red Cross and Physicians without borders, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

That’s some “crisis” which has you weepy-eyed.


Hamas second-richest terror group in world, Forbes says

 

[Markle]

Hitler lost.

It's still the same philosophy.

Perfectly defining your logic. To you, winning and losing a war is the same thing. Thank you!

 

[Markle]

Too bad Arafat did not have the brains NOT TO start the intifadas and that way putting an end for the people in Gaza having good jobs in Israel, and education, etc.

They are on their own now, except for the health care which Israel will still allow.

That is what happens to those who chose war.

According to the Red Cross and Physicians without borders, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Brought on by their elected terrorist government, Hamas. Thank you again!

 

[Markle]

Look, the whole point I am trying to argue here is that there is nothing "magical" about the "1967 lines". There is no point in arguing for a return to some "magical" point in time.

Israel (And I really mean Jews here) needs peace and security. Arab Palesinians need self-determination and a future. It makes no difference where the boundary ultimately ends up as long as both those things can be brought into being.

Oreally would argue with you and call you filthy names if any Conservative posted that the sun rises in the East. He's a simple troll.

 

[Markle]

Israelis used to vacation in Gaza. It was Israel who slammed the door.

Yes, sending suicide bombers, rockets, mortars and more tends to do that.

 

[Markle]

There is nothing to negotiate. Israel wants the Palestinians to negotiate away their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not negotiable. Any treaty or agreement that violates the rights of the people is invalid.

Would you be so kind as to show us where swearing genocide against any group is an inalienable right?

If you cannot, then there is nothing more to be added to this foolish thread is there?

 

[Markle]

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Which has exactly what to do with 100 years later?

 

[Markle]

Because you took it in the '67 war and you can't hold onto land seized in a war.

On what planet is that the case?

Has Russia not taken Crimea?

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, toomuchtime_, et al,

Neither the Palestine Order in Council, the Palestine Citizenship Order, or the Palestine Election Order granted any control over the Government of Palestine. The Government of Palestine was in the hands of the British High Commissioner.

Exactly, all these countries were held in belligerent occupation by the League of Nations, which was just a tool by which Britain and France occupied the ME. In fact, go back two thousand years or longer and nearly all of the ME was held in belligerent occupation by one power or another continuously right down to the Ottomans. All of these League of Nations Mandates were just tools by which the Ottoman occupation of the ME was turned into the British and French occupations of the ME.

Belligerent occupation simply means captured in war, and when the UN was forced to dissolve the Mandate after the British decided it was no longer profitable to hold on to it, despite the recommendations made in the Partition resolution, the land belonged to no one but everyone laid claim to it. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and even Iraq all laid claim to it, and of course, the new state of Israel did, too, but the issue would be decided by force of arms among the peoples there and not by diplomats from far away places, and that is how it should be because there is no entity on Earth that can legitimately claim to have the authority to decide these issues.

When the war ended all the land was held in belligerent occupation, including Israel, since it was all acquired in war, but over time, the nations in the region began to determine the legitimacy of ownership as did Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and the rest of the land is still held by force of arms until some settlement can be reached with the other Arab nations. The only difference between lands held in belligerent occupation and those considered legitimate is that in the latter, the wars of occupation are more ancient.

To get back to the Jordanian capture of Judea and Samaria, when the Mandate was dissolved, in terms of modern history, no one had a greater claim to it than anyone else and Jordan's capture of it, painful though it was, was no more legitimate or illegitimate than Israel's capture of it would have been, and Israel's capture of that land years later was similarly neither legitimate nor illegitimate since these issues are never resolved by international law or by any international organization, but always only by the parties to the dispute. We do not live in a world of laws, we live in a world of myths about a world of laws, and matters continue to be resolved as they always have been by the nations involved agreeing to what they believe what best serves their interests, as was the case between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.

As for the Palestinians role in all of this, they have none. For thousands of years no one saw them as a distinct people with any rights at all, and if Israel were a Muslim state or a Christian state, no one would notice them today.

In 1924 the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. This gave them the rights to the land.

Bullshit, there was no nation of Palestine in 1924.

Link?
Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli shit.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 192625
Copy Right: Government Of Palestine 1924 Early & Rare Emergency Laissez Passer
​

Our Friend "P F Tinmore" really believes that there is this huge conspiracy to ignore Palestinian Citizenship, the nation, and the sovereignty to the territory. But you will be hard pressed to convience him that the citizenship to Palestine in 1924 did not relate to an autonomous government.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the change was with the Treaty of Lausanne.

Bullshit, the treaty had nothing to do with the so called Palestinians who were not even recognized as a people by any of the parties to the treaty at that time. Why do you feel the need to lie so much?

 

[Billo_Really]

That’s some “crisis” which has you weepy-eyed.


Hamas second-richest terror group in world, Forbes says

They don't get as much as Israel gets from the US. And they're a state-sponsored terrorist group.

 

[Billo_Really]

Perfectly defining your logic. To you, winning and losing a war is the same thing. Thank you!

That's not what I said. Why do you lie?

 

[Billo_Really]

Brought on by their elected terrorist government, Hamas. Thank you again!

Wrong! Brought on by ISRAEL'S DECISION to collectively punish the entire population of Gaza, because ISRAEL didn't like the results of a fair and democratic election.