The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...

[teddyearp]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an important concept --- one that needs to be read and understood correctly.

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974

(COMMENT)

There are four key factors here:

• Palestinians ---
• Their homes and property ---
• displaced and uprooted ---
• return ---

This does not apply to descendants. Only those that were displaced and uprooted. That is a considerably different set of people. It is a number of less than 80,000; all of which are 60 years old (or more).

Most Respectfully,
R

And I would like to add to this. When Israel declared its' independence, they did not exclude any of the inhabitants of the area; no, they were willing to include all.

It was the Arab league that encouraged those who did not want to live in the new State of Israel to leave with a promise that these "Jews" would be defeated and "pushed out to sea". And there is the other side of this coin, called the "plan dalet". Neither of these can be totally confirmed nor denied.

 

[teddyearp]

<snip>Only those family members that were displaced and uprooted. If you are born outside the State of Israel, you are not a Palestinian Refugee; you are a Palestinian Citizen. Refugee status doesn't grow and is not an inherited status. The only people that think that are Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is something I could buy into; and perhaps Israel as well . . . . however, I would have to still want to know exactly what their reasoning was for them to become displaced and uprooted. Meaning, was it the Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'?

 

[teddyearp]

View attachment 32708

Well that looks to me like the Jews at the time are paying more in property tax than any other. So now what's your point?

That the Christians and Muslims owned 90% of the land, as the table depicts.

So why were the Jews paying more of the property taxes then?

 

[teddyearp]

To have peace the Jews in Palestine have two choices. Agree to the establishment of a secular democracy where all the people of Palestine have equal rights, or return to where their parents, grand parents and great grand parents came from. The demographics are not conducive to exclusive Jewish rule or Apartheid for the long term. If a Jewish state had been established in a part of Germany, for example, they would be part of the EU and there would probably be few problems as the Germans would have little to complain about.

Honestly I wanted to break this down, but it is futile with you to waste such time and energy. Let me just say this.

The Jews have established a democracy in Israel (whether secular or religious is another subject of great debate) and the Palestinians were invited and several of 'them' who did not leave Israel do participate.

Then you go back to the two worn out arguments of yours. The European jews and apartheid. Both very worn out propaganda points from you.

But your last sentence shows what ignorance you have for history. A Jewish state established in Germany? Are you ******* kidding?? It was getting away from Germany that really drove home the need for the creation of the state of Israel in the first place.

You Sara are a cull.

 

[teddyearp]

So what. Urban land is taxed at a higher rate.

Who cares? The Jews paid more in taxes. But that is what you muslims want all along isn't it?

 

[montelatici]

So what. Urban land is taxed at a higher rate.

Who cares? The Jews paid more in taxes. But that is what you muslims want all along isn't it?

Fine, so they owned less than 10% of the land and paid more taxes to the British.

 

[teddyearp]

So what. Urban land is taxed at a higher rate.

Who cares? The Jews paid more in taxes. But that is what you muslims want all along isn't it?

Fine, so they owned less than 10% of the land and paid more taxes to the British.

Yup. Goes to show who contributed more money to the country. The same who made more of it.

 

[montelatici]

So what. Urban land is taxed at a higher rate.

Who cares? The Jews paid more in taxes. But that is what you muslims want all along isn't it?

Fine, so they owned less than 10% of the land and paid more taxes to the British.

Yup. Goes to show who contributed more money to the country. The same who made more of it.

They contributed more to the British, the British made money on the Mandate, didn't you know?

 

[RoccoR]

teddyearp, et al,

The problem here is, that the "refugee" concept doesn't actually consider the "why" behind the flight (displacement or uprooting); other then in very broad strokes (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster).

The official international definition of a refugee is a long page of --- if, thens, and whereas' --- in Article I, Section "A" of the 1951 Convention; but does apply to events occurring before 1 January 1951.

<snip>Only those family members that were displaced and uprooted. If you are born outside the State of Israel, you are not a Palestinian Refugee; you are a Palestinian Citizen. Refugee status doesn't grow and is not an inherited status. The only people that think that are Palestinians.

This is something I could buy into; and perhaps Israel as well . . . . however, I would have to still want to know exactly what their reasoning was for them to become displaced and uprooted. Meaning, was it the Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'?

(COMMENT)

One of the problems with this definition is that a refugee --- being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. It doesn't matter whether it was (hypothetically) a result of "Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'" as you are considering. So that is the drawback on the Israeli perspective.

On the other hand, every Arab Palestinian in the West Bank at the time the Jordanians Annexed the West Bank and were citizen of Jordan, "acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country [Jordan] of his new nationality." [Article 1C(3) of the 1951 Convention, page 15] Thus, since the Arab Palestinians exercised their "right of self-determination" --- participated in the Jordanian Parliament --- accepted the Annexation, and enjoyed Jordanian Citizenship, ceased to be Arab Palestinian Refugees from Israel, and for all intent and purposes, are Arab-Palestinian Refugees from Jordan for a short period of time. Except that, in 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), accepted by both the Arab League and the UN as the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence. Thus they accepted Palestinian Citizenship.

So, anyone who is a Citizen of the State of Palestine (or any other country for that matter) is not a Refugee from the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine and considered part of the State of Israel today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

teddyearp, et al,

The problem here is, that the "refugee" concept doesn't actually consider the "why" behind the flight (displacement or uprooting); other then in very broad strokes (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster).

The official international definition of a refugee is a long page of --- if, thens, and whereas' --- in Article I, Section "A" of the 1951 Convention; but does apply to events occurring before 1 January 1951.

<snip>Only those family members that were displaced and uprooted. If you are born outside the State of Israel, you are not a Palestinian Refugee; you are a Palestinian Citizen. Refugee status doesn't grow and is not an inherited status. The only people that think that are Palestinians.

This is something I could buy into; and perhaps Israel as well . . . . however, I would have to still want to know exactly what their reasoning was for them to become displaced and uprooted. Meaning, was it the Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'?

(COMMENT)

One of the problems with this definition is that a refugee --- being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. It doesn't matter whether it was (hypothetically) a result of "Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'" as you are considering. So that is the drawback on the Israeli perspective.

On the other hand, every Arab Palestinian in the West Bank at the time the Jordanians Annexed the West Bank and were citizen of Jordan, "acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country [Jordan] of his new nationality." [Article 1C(3) of the 1951 Convention, page 15] Thus, since the Arab Palestinians exercised their "right of self-determination" --- participated in the Jordanian Parliament --- accepted the Annexation, and enjoyed Jordanian Citizenship, ceased to be Arab Palestinian Refugees from Israel, and for all intent and purposes, are Arab-Palestinian Refugees from Jordan for a short period of time. Except that, in 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), accepted by both the Arab League and the UN as the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence. Thus they accepted Palestinian Citizenship.

So, anyone who is a Citizen of the State of Palestine (or any other country for that matter) is not a Refugee from the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine and considered part of the State of Israel today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, go to the UN and make that silly claim moron.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The UN set the definition that was approved by Convention.

teddyearp, et al,

The problem here is, that the "refugee" concept doesn't actually consider the "why" behind the flight (displacement or uprooting); other then in very broad strokes (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster).

The official international definition of a refugee is a long page of --- if, thens, and whereas' --- in Article I, Section "A" of the 1951 Convention; but does apply to events occurring before 1 January 1951.

<snip>Only those family members that were displaced and uprooted. If you are born outside the State of Israel, you are not a Palestinian Refugee; you are a Palestinian Citizen. Refugee status doesn't grow and is not an inherited status. The only people that think that are Palestinians.

This is something I could buy into; and perhaps Israel as well . . . . however, I would have to still want to know exactly what their reasoning was for them to become displaced and uprooted. Meaning, was it the Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'?

(COMMENT)

One of the problems with this definition is that a refugee --- being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. It doesn't matter whether it was (hypothetically) a result of "Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'" as you are considering. So that is the drawback on the Israeli perspective.

On the other hand, every Arab Palestinian in the West Bank at the time the Jordanians Annexed the West Bank and were citizen of Jordan, "acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country [Jordan] of his new nationality." [Article 1C(3) of the 1951 Convention, page 15] Thus, since the Arab Palestinians exercised their "right of self-determination" --- participated in the Jordanian Parliament --- accepted the Annexation, and enjoyed Jordanian Citizenship, ceased to be Arab Palestinian Refugees from Israel, and for all intent and purposes, are Arab-Palestinian Refugees from Jordan for a short period of time. Except that, in 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), accepted by both the Arab League and the UN as the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence. Thus they accepted Palestinian Citizenship.

So, anyone who is a Citizen of the State of Palestine (or any other country for that matter) is not a Refugee from the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine and considered part of the State of Israel today.

Well, go to the UN and make that silly claim moron.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Palestinians don't fit the Convention like every other refugee? Are they so special --- with unique rights?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The UN set the definition that was approved by Convention.

teddyearp, et al,

The problem here is, that the "refugee" concept doesn't actually consider the "why" behind the flight (displacement or uprooting); other then in very broad strokes (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster).

The official international definition of a refugee is a long page of --- if, thens, and whereas' --- in Article I, Section "A" of the 1951 Convention; but does apply to events occurring before 1 January 1951.

<snip>Only those family members that were displaced and uprooted. If you are born outside the State of Israel, you are not a Palestinian Refugee; you are a Palestinian Citizen. Refugee status doesn't grow and is not an inherited status. The only people that think that are Palestinians.

This is something I could buy into; and perhaps Israel as well . . . . however, I would have to still want to know exactly what their reasoning was for them to become displaced and uprooted. Meaning, was it the Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'?

(COMMENT)

One of the problems with this definition is that a refugee --- being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. It doesn't matter whether it was (hypothetically) a result of "Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'" as you are considering. So that is the drawback on the Israeli perspective.

On the other hand, every Arab Palestinian in the West Bank at the time the Jordanians Annexed the West Bank and were citizen of Jordan, "acquired a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country [Jordan] of his new nationality." [Article 1C(3) of the 1951 Convention, page 15] Thus, since the Arab Palestinians exercised their "right of self-determination" --- participated in the Jordanian Parliament --- accepted the Annexation, and enjoyed Jordanian Citizenship, ceased to be Arab Palestinian Refugees from Israel, and for all intent and purposes, are Arab-Palestinian Refugees from Jordan for a short period of time. Except that, in 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), accepted by both the Arab League and the UN as the sole representative of the Palestinian People, declared independence. Thus they accepted Palestinian Citizenship.

So, anyone who is a Citizen of the State of Palestine (or any other country for that matter) is not a Refugee from the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine and considered part of the State of Israel today.

Well, go to the UN and make that silly claim moron.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Palestinians don't fit the Convention like every other refugee? Are they so special --- with unique rights?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well yes. The UN recognized that they caused the refugee problem by giving Europeans a land inhabited by local people. It is the only case where that happened up to that time. And, has never happened since.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is so wrong; yet so close.

Well yes. The UN recognized that they caused the refugee problem by giving Europeans a land inhabited by local people. It is the only case where that happened up to that time. And, has never happened since.

(COMMENT)

They are not technically refugees --- in fact they are Palestinian Citizens.

But there is one aspect that is very arguable in favor of the Arab Palestinians that were displaced; that being the matter of compensation for property lost.

I have mentioned this many times in previous commentaries; the matter of reparation, compensation, restitution, and civil claims.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

<snip>Only those family members that were displaced and uprooted. If you are born outside the State of Israel, you are not a Palestinian Refugee; you are a Palestinian Citizen. Refugee status doesn't grow and is not an inherited status. The only people that think that are Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is something I could buy into; and perhaps Israel as well . . . . however, I would have to still want to know exactly what their reasoning was for them to become displaced and uprooted. Meaning, was it the Arab League, or the 'plan dalet'?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I didn't see the highlighted text

"So, Israel was allowed to determine it's own destiny, fought the WARS like I mentioned earlier in the thread, won the land. "

in your link.

What's wrong with what he said ? It's completely true. You should know this

Then there should be no problem to provide a link.

I didn't see the highlighted text

"So, Israel was allowed to determine it's own destiny, fought the WARS like I mentioned earlier in the thread, won the land. "

in your link.

What's wrong with what he said ? It's completely true. You should know this

Then there should be no problem to provide a link.

What's the point of providing a link for you? You're till going to deny it and claim you're right.

But here you go ( I cannot believe you didn't know this):

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Territorial changes	Israel keeps area allotted to it byPartition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I don't refute that but there needs to be some documentation showing that Israel gets to keep the land it captured militarily.

It is illegal to keep land captured in war.

Who says there needs to be documentation? They captured land ALLOTTED to the Palestinian in the partition plan. It doesn't say they captured Palestinian Territory.
That land is now inside the green line and inside Israel's internationally recognized borders. Recognized by the U.N AND the P.A .

Still ducking out on providing that link?

It is true. Allotted only means set aside for a purpose. The allotted land for the Jewish state and the Arab state were to be given to the respective states in the implementation of resolution 181 that didn't happen.

The Green Line is the international recognized de facto border. It is not a real border so it is Palestine on both sides.

 

[MaryL]

No, I will say this again and again, the world is tired of Muslim atrocities. Suicide bombers, using innocent people as shields. Islam may not be evil, but apparently it's believers don't know it's own beliefs, shame on these people for accepting that. Shame on Islam for doing NOTHING to stop evil people of it's own. WHY don't they do more? The world needs to ask this, why doesn't Islam do more to stop evil it's own ranks?

 

[toastman]

What's wrong with what he said ? It's completely true. You should know this

Then there should be no problem to provide a link.

What's wrong with what he said ? It's completely true. You should know this

Then there should be no problem to provide a link.

What's the point of providing a link for you? You're till going to deny it and claim you're right.

But here you go ( I cannot believe you didn't know this):

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Territorial changes	Israel keeps area allotted to it byPartition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I don't refute that but there needs to be some documentation showing that Israel gets to keep the land it captured militarily.

It is illegal to keep land captured in war.

Who says there needs to be documentation? They captured land ALLOTTED to the Palestinian in the partition plan. It doesn't say they captured Palestinian Territory.
That land is now inside the green line and inside Israel's internationally recognized borders. Recognized by the U.N AND the P.A .

Still ducking out on providing that link?

It is true. Allotted only means set aside for a purpose. The allotted land for the Jewish state and the Arab state were to be given to the respective states in the implementation of resolution 181 that didn't happen.

The Green Line is the international recognized de facto border. It is not a real border so it is Palestine on both sides.

I gave you a link showing that Israel captured that territory . The fact that you asked for documentation is another 'Tinmore Pre requisite'


"It is Palestine on both sides"



Keep telling yourself that. Everything inside the green line is Israels land. And Israel has internationally recognized boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. .
So, you're wrong. Again. For like the 500th time.

:

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I disagree, this is not accurate; link or no link.

Still ducking out on providing that link?

It is true. Allotted only means set aside for a purpose. The allotted land for the Jewish state and the Arab state were to be given to the respective states in the implementation of resolution 181 that didn't happen.

The Green Line is the international recognized de facto border. It is not a real border so it is Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

Resolution 181(II) did happen and was "implemented" as evidenced in commentary Provided many times before; most recently in Post 550. But the implementation, as originally envisioned, was very short lived (overtaken by event of hostile external Arab/Arab Palestinian initiation) as a result of internal civil confrontations and then external foreign interference by five Arab Armies that entered the fray. As an outcome of the military engagements between Israeli Forces opposed by invading Arab Armies, the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) was used as the Armistice Lines between the warring parties (with a few minor adjustments).

There is a dispute today, in the smaller stretches of the original Armistice Lines, as to the "de facto" border. But make no mistake, there is a very clear and unambiguous boundary between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine. It is clearly recognizable, and unmistakable when you come upon it. It is not the case that it is Palestine on both sides, (meaning there is no nation of Israel). Palestine is now defined by the UN as that "sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" ---- and ---- "effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, even the Palestinians used resolution 181 to declare independence.

"The Declaration contains an overt acceptance that "the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into two states [...] provides the legal basis for the right of the Palestinian Arab people to national sovereignty and independence."

November 15 1988 The Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then there should be no problem to provide a link.

Then there should be no problem to provide a link.

What's the point of providing a link for you? You're till going to deny it and claim you're right.

But here you go ( I cannot believe you didn't know this):

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Territorial changes	Israel keeps area allotted to it byPartition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I don't refute that but there needs to be some documentation showing that Israel gets to keep the land it captured militarily.

It is illegal to keep land captured in war.

Who says there needs to be documentation? They captured land ALLOTTED to the Palestinian in the partition plan. It doesn't say they captured Palestinian Territory.
That land is now inside the green line and inside Israel's internationally recognized borders. Recognized by the U.N AND the P.A .

Still ducking out on providing that link?

It is true. Allotted only means set aside for a purpose. The allotted land for the Jewish state and the Arab state were to be given to the respective states in the implementation of resolution 181 that didn't happen.

The Green Line is the international recognized de facto border. It is not a real border so it is Palestine on both sides.

I gave you a link showing that Israel captured that territory . The fact that you asked for documentation is another 'Tinmore Pre requisite'


"It is Palestine on both sides"



Keep telling yourself that. Everything inside the green line is Israels land. And Israel has internationally recognized boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. .
So, you're wrong. Again. For like the 500th time.

:

If that is Israel's land why does it not have a border? Not even Israel recognized the green line as its border.

If that is Israel's land there should be documents showing when it acquired the land.