Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[theliq]

...Oh really. Examples?

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table

Your opinion of me does not interest me in the slightest, Fatima...

Hi Kondie,stop being so sensitive my friend........I was only teasing you,I like to throw in the odd Bomb occasionally,as you full well know....I just think you need it from time to time.........but Dog at the Table was pretty funny........but maybe on reflection not to you..If I have hurt your feelings then I apologise...You know I love you man.steve...mind you..... you give as good as you get, and what's all this Fatima business????now I'm some ISIS femme BOMBER...you naughty boy.LOL

 

[Hossfly]

...Oh really. Examples?

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table

Your opinion of me does not interest me in the slightest, Fatima...

Hi Kondie,stop being so sensitive my friend........I was only teasing you,I like to throw in the odd Bomb occasionally,as you full well know....I just think you need it from time to time.........but Dog at the Table was pretty funny........but maybe on reflection not to you..If I have hurt your feelings then I apologise...You know I love you man.steve...mind you..... you give as good as you get, and what's all this Fatima business????now I'm some ISIS femme BOMBER...you naughty boy.LOL

Go comb your curls, Sister.

 

[theliq]

...Oh really. Examples?

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table

Your opinion of me does not interest me in the slightest, Fatima...

Hi Kondie,stop being so sensitive my friend........I was only teasing you,I like to throw in the odd Bomb occasionally,as you full well know....I just think you need it from time to time.........but Dog at the Table was pretty funny........but maybe on reflection not to you..If I have hurt your feelings then I apologise...You know I love you man.steve...mind you..... you give as good as you get, and what's all this Fatima business????now I'm some ISIS femme BOMBER...you naughty boy.LOL

Go comb your curls, Sister.

I REFUSE TO BECOME YOUR ***** Hoss...LOL

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

 

[Phoenall]

...Oh really. Examples?

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

OK but what were some of the offers and why were they refused, i.e. what were the clunkers in those offers?

There were none on the table, just the palestinian preconditions that Israel refused point blank. You have never negotiated have you, if you had you would know you come to the table with a blank piece of paper and make your submissions from that starting point.
You offer A and I reply with B and we eventually meet in the middle and so we negotiate every point on the agenda until we reach a compromise acceptable to everyone.


So what offers were made in your eyes, that were agreed and passed only to be kicked into touch by the arab muslims strictly sticking to the Khartoum resolutions

 

[Phoenall]

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table

Your opinion of me does not interest me in the slightest, Fatima...

Hi Kondie,stop being so sensitive my friend........I was only teasing you,I like to throw in the odd Bomb occasionally,as you full well know....I just think you need it from time to time.........but Dog at the Table was pretty funny........but maybe on reflection not to you..If I have hurt your feelings then I apologise...You know I love you man.steve...mind you..... you give as good as you get, and what's all this Fatima business????now I'm some ISIS femme BOMBER...you naughty boy.LOL

Go comb your curls, Sister.

I REFUSE TO BECOME YOUR ***** Hoss...LOL

Is that because you are sold to another ?

 

[Phoenall]

OK but what were some of the offers and why were they refused, i.e. what were the clunkers in those offers?

Yeah, clunkers like Olmert's -- "Here's everything you asked for".

Oh really? Did the Palestinians get the Jordan Valley and open borders to Jordan?

Did the Jordanians take part in the discusions then, as they are the only ones who could grant them those articles. It is not in Israel's power to negotiate Jordans borders or relinquishing of Jordans lands.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

The formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, more or less, followed international law.

Palestine was the aberration. International law was not a consideration.

The same International laws and International treaties applied so how was it different ?

They were never nations in their own rights, apart from Lebanon, for 700 years prior to 1917 when the LoN handed them the right to form a government under its care and protection. If palestine was an aberration then Jordan cant exist either as both were covered by the self same international law and treaty The MANDATE OF PALESTINE read it and see.

 

[Phoenall]

OK but what were some of the offers and why were they refused, i.e. what were the clunkers in those offers?

Yeah, clunkers like Olmert's -- "Here's everything you asked for".

Oh really? Did the Palestinians get the Jordan Valley and open borders to Jordan?

Um. Yes, actually. They just also got a temporary Israeli presence there to monitor the crossings as an early warning system in order to prevent security problems like those which arose in Gaza after the disengagement.

The fact that this was rejected indicates that one of the things Palestinians want in their "peace treaty" is the ability to attack and presumably try to destroy Israel. In other words, they want the "peace treaty" to aide them in continuing the conflict.

Which means that Israel, by putting in place concrete, practical solutions is the one MAKING peace. And Palestinians, in trying to prevent security arrangements, are the ones who are AVOIDING peace.

Um. Yes, actually. They just also got a temporary Israeli presence there to monitor the crossings as an early warning system in order to prevent security problems like those which arose in Gaza after the disengagement.​

That looks more like a no than a yes.

WRONG you really need to stop putting in words that are not there, it is a common islamonazi trait to enable them to lie

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

The formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, more or less, followed international law.

Palestine was the aberration. International law was not a consideration.

Your claim was that the thing which made the formation of Israel illegal was that people "got the boot". That was the source of the illegality. Yet people "got the boot" in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq as well.

So you need to either withdraw your statement as to the cause of the illegality or explain why people "getting the boot" in some places is illegal and not in others, using actual law.

There is more than one issue about Israel. I just mentioned the most well known.

Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

And it is covered even in modern up to date International laws as being allowed.

But what about the islamonazi nations enactment of International laws valid until 2015 that allowed them to evict unwanted citizens without using due legal process. That is why over 1 million Jews were forcibly removed from islamonazi nations in 1949 and you have never complained about that have you.
ONCE AGAIN PROVING THAT YOU DONT WANT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO WORK IN THE JEWS FAVOUR.

 

[Phoenall]

That looks more like a no than a yes.

That looks to me like a complete avoidance of the substance of the argument -- which is that Palestine will accept no peace treaty which does not give them everything they ask for including the right to continue the conflict through use of armed force.

Who is avoiding peace, then?

The closing of the border with Jordan has been called the Gazafication of the West Bank. No doubt that is unacceptable.

Only by islamonazi's like yourself

 

[Phoenall]

The closing of the border with Jordan has been called the Gazafication of the West Bank. No doubt that is unacceptable.

In order for the West Bank to be "Gazified" (oooh, lovely word) several conditions would have to be satisfied on the West Bank side: importation of weapons, attacks on Israel's territory and citizens, incitement, lack of resources committed to the well-being of West Bank citizens, lack of resources committed to economic growth. I would agree all this is absolutely unacceptable, wouldn't you?

If those in the West Bank act no better with respect to creating peace than the Gazans do, they should expect the same result. But it truly is up to them.

There is already a closure of the West Bank. It is just not as severe as the one in Gaza.

And all legal and in accordance with International laws and the Geneva conventions

 

[Phoenall]

Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

Of course not. I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians. But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created. You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot". Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?

But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.

LIAR


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands.


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN

 

[Phoenall]

Good question, but it is not the Palestinian's job to solve the problems of others. They have enough problems of their own.

True. But it is your job. You, having made this moral and legal determination that we have a whole pile of illegal countries in the ME and elsewhere in the world, are obligated to apply that determination universally, else expose yourself as a hypocrite. So, should we expand BDS to encompass ALL the illegal countries which arose out of the Mandate period post WWI? And elsewhere?

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

No it wasnt, why do you LIE it was formed by a small minority of "palestinans" based on propaganda, lies and blood libels

 

[Phoenall]

There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.

Well, then, feel free to elaborate, as you failed to do in your original post.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.

Israel never had a defined territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

Does not apply as you have been shown, it only applies to the parties who originally signed up for it and covers the Americas.
Yes it did and it is defined under international law.
LINK ?
LINK?
Make your mind up time does it exist or was it scrapped. If it was scrapped then it cant apply, if it was exists it does not say this at all
No they were evicted as enemy nationals covered by International laws of the time.

 

[Phoenall]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Just as arab muslim illegal immigrants, See hansard and Winston Churchill, which is 80% of the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians. The only migrants allowed to become palestinians were the Jews under international law

 

[Phoenall]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?

I am just referring to the legitimate Palestinians citizens.

Who were the inhabitants in 1917 and any Jews already there or who migrated up until 1948

 

[P F Tinmore]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?

I am just referring to the legitimate Palestinians citizens.

Who were the inhabitants in 1917 and any Jews already there or who migrated up until 1948

In the absence of data on the inhabitants’ nationality at the time of the enactment of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, one might reach fairly accurate figures on Ottoman subjects by deducting the available number of foreigners from the overall population.

The total number of foreigners who registered as immigrants in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 79,368 persons, of all religions. Another number of foreign residents should be also subtracted from the general total of Palestine’s population mentioned above; that number is the 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in September 1922 for the purpose of voting in the legislative election. The remaining number of Palestine’s inhabitants constituted Ottoman subjects.

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238(79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).

Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%). On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925.

Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725– (37,997 +76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well there are answers to all of this issues.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.
Israel never had a defined territory.

(ANSWER)

Independence was through the declarative theory of sovereignty. The original delcaration was based on the UN Recommendation which Israel followed. But short lived, because of the external interference and act of aggression on the part of the entire Arab League (5 National Armies), when the smoke cleared and the Armistice Lines where drawn, the State of Israel established sovereignty over the additional territory. Israel has been enforcing that very same border as (defined) sovereign territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

(ANSWER)

The will of the Jewish People, through the voice of the Jewish Aagency, established the Provisional Government and successfully defended it against the Arab League (more than once).

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(ANSWER)

TheJewish State of Israel established the nation under the rule of law, in the shadow of a Jewish-Arab Civil War, and then against Hostile Arab Palestinians. There was no refugee movements after the succession of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Lines.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

(ANSWER)

General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is a "recommendation" that was attempted to be implemented but was interfered with by the Arab League. (Adverse actions by the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Hostile Arab Palestinians, have consequence. The is especially true when the action involved the coordinated attack by the immediately surrounding Arab League Nations (and more).

You should also remember that the:

• The Fourth Geneva Convention did not go into effect until October 1950, after the annexation of the West Bank by parties to the Arab League.

• The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons did not go into effect until 1954.

• The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not go into effect until after the 1948-49 War of Independence.
​

But even if any were, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
​

Remember, the Arab Committee declared its intention and threat to open and continue a conflict with the Jewish People over the establishment of the Jewish State in the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee. This threat was made before the War of Independence. The movement of Arab Palestinians out from the rear area was a military imperative to remove a threat potential.

The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm its position that the Arabs of Palestine would not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. Arab Palestinians made a solemn declaration that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man. This is a threat. It is a threat that has been backed-up by deeds. The scope and nature of the threat has been demonstrated to the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of that refutes my post.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

Actually it destroys your claims completely because you rely on only one source, so when the evidence is produced showing that you are using false premise you cant stand being rebuked and your arguments proven false

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal. What? Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?

He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations

Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL