Who Are The Palestinians " III "

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: Confusion
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,


(COMMENT)
.
I did not realize I had to explain every little thing...

◈ The "Protected Persons" refers to the Arab Palestinians.​

​

◈ Article 51 of Protocol 1 covers the civilians in both Israel and the Special Provisions over Area "C"​

​

You are trying to through off the observation. No matter how you slice it, the Israeli Settlers ARE civilians protected under the Geneva Convention Protocol. The protocol does not say anything about your hair splitting.

(Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"..

Most Respectfully,
R

Israeli settlers are a necessary, integral, and active part of Israel's colonial project. Without the settlers, there would be no colonialism. Colonialism is inherently an act of aggression against the local population.

The Palestinians have the right to resist this aggression.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: Confusion
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,


(COMMENT)
.
I did not realize I had to explain every little thing...

◈ The "Protected Persons" refers to the Arab Palestinians.​

​

◈ Article 51 of Protocol 1 covers the civilians in both Israel and the Special Provisions over Area "C"​

​

You are trying to through off the observation. No matter how you slice it, the Israeli Settlers ARE civilians protected under the Geneva Convention Protocol. The protocol does not say anything about your hair splitting.

(Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C"..

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo did not tranasfer sovereignty or title to land to Israel and does not authorize Israel to violate international law.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Palestinian mother tells son how to be a martyr. (He listened.)​

Muntasir Al-Shawa, above, was a 16-year-old child soldier of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

On February 8, when religious Jews were going to visit the Joseph's Tomb shrine to pray as they do every couple of weeks, he decided to fight the Israeli soldiers protecting them.

He expected to, and wanted to, die. And he indeed got injured and died a couple of weeks later.

Palestinian Media Watch quotes his mother when he told her his plans to become a "martyr."

The day before [my son’s] injury [from which he died], he told me: ‘I want to go to the Balata refugee camp [near Joseph's Tomb], and I'll come back to you as a Martyr.’ I laughed at him and told him: ‘Do you think being a Martyr is something trivial? Go bathe, pray, bow down to Allah, and then there might be a chance that Allah will agree to accept you [as a Martyr].’ The following night he came back to me as a Martyr. Praise Allah.

[Official PA TV News, Feb. 21, 2023]

What kind of a culture has mothers encouraging their children to die - and giving them advice to accomplish that goal?

Palestinians have a sick, depraved and perverted culture.

Once again, I am more than happy to have anyone who disagrees to find me an article in Arabic by a Palestinian who objects to this mindset. Just one.

I've been waiting for years.

Palestinian mother tells son how to be a martyr. (He listened.)

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Hollie]

Oslo did not tranasfer sovereignty or title to land to Israel and does not authorize Israel to violate international law.

False premise.

 

[Hollie]

This is really naive.

IDF Operations Chief: 'Can’t promise no Palestinian terror on Ramadan'

Bassiuk also said that the IDF’s job is to protect Israel from all threats as diverse as “knives from Judea and Samaria to the [Iranian] nuclear threat.”

www.google.com

IDF Operations Chief: 'Can’t promise won’t be Palestinian terror escalation during Ramadan'


The Islamic holy month of killing and maiming has a long history.

Terror Attacks Disrupt Ramadan | Middle East Policy Council

mepc.org

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: Confusion
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(REFERENCE)

---

◈ Aggression: This term first acquired technical signifi cance by reason of the stipulation of art. 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that members undertook ‘to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members’. It was adopted by the U.N. Charter, art. 1(1) specifying as a fi rst purpose of the Organization ‘[t]o maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace’; and art. 39 providing that ‘[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and security’.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
pg 18

---

◈ Colonial Protectorate: This institution arose from the provisions of art. 34 of the General Act of the Berlin Conference respecting the Congo of 26 February 1885...
SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
pg 107

---

◈ Colony: The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international
law. As such, its exact signifi cance may vary from municipal system to municipal system.
Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of
the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General
Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration
(General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights
and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
pg 107

Israeli settlers are a necessary, integral, and active part of Israel's colonial project. Without the settlers, there would be no colonialism. Colonialism is inherently an act of aggression against the local population.

The Palestinians have the right to resist this aggression.

(COMMENT)

In 1966, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed, the territory that was formerly under the British Mandate washeld by three parties: Israel, Jordan and Egypt. There was no portion of the territory that was under a provisonal government called "Palestine." When Egypt and Jordan withdrew from the respective portions of the territroy, what remained was (absent any other political body of government) Israeli control. The moment that Egypt and then Jordan abandon their holdings, those portions came under Israeli control; being the only formed government in those areas of territory. Hence, Israel did not act aggressively against any "Palestinian" people, nation, state, or another form of the Palestinian government. The Office of the Deputy Secretary General for Legal Affairs wrote a memorandum to that effect.

(∑)
Your allegation is without merit.
.

Oslo did not tranasfer sovereignty or title to land to Israel and does not authorize Israel to violate international law.

(COMMENT)

No one made that claim.

You are making a bogus argument.

The Special Provisions concerning Area "C" still apply.

(∑)

Your suggestion that the transfer of sovereignty made some significant difference in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian is simply fallacious.

If it was as simple as you claim it to be, the dispute would have been resoved a half-century ago.

(SIDEBAR)

It is my opinion that people like yourself, who continuously make the that hostile activity is somehow legal under your interpretation of events is a criminal violation of International Law:

Article 20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​

​

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: Confusion
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(REFERENCE)

---

◈ Aggression: This term first acquired technical signifi cance by reason of the stipulation of art. 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that members undertook ‘to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members’. It was adopted by the U.N. Charter, art. 1(1) specifying as a fi rst purpose of the Organization ‘[t]o maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace’; and art. 39 providing that ‘[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and security’.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
pg 18

---

◈ Colonial Protectorate: This institution arose from the provisions of art. 34 of the General Act of the Berlin Conference respecting the Congo of 26 February 1885...
SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
pg 107

---

◈ Colony: The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international
law. As such, its exact signifi cance may vary from municipal system to municipal system.
Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of
the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General
Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration
(General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights
and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
pg 107


(COMMENT)

In 1966, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed, the territory that was formerly under the British Mandate washeld by three parties: Israel, Jordan and Egypt. There was no portion of the territory that was under a provisonal government called "Palestine." When Egypt and Jordan withdrew from the respective portions of the territroy, what remained was (absent any other political body of government) Israeli control. The moment that Egypt and then Jordan abandon their holdings, those portions came under Israeli control; being the only formed government in those areas of territory. Hence, Israel did not act aggressively against any "Palestinian" people, nation, state, or another form of the Palestinian government. The Office of the Deputy Secretary General for Legal Affairs wrote a memorandum to that effect.

(∑)
Your allegation is without merit.
.

(COMMENT)

No one made that claim.

You are making a bogus argument.

The Special Provisions concerning Area "C" still apply.

(∑)

Your suggestion that the transfer of sovereignty made some significant difference in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian is simply fallacious.

If it was as simple as you claim it to be, the dispute would have been resoved a half-century ago.

(SIDEBAR)

It is my opinion that people like yourself, who continuously make the that hostile activity is somehow legal under your interpretation of events is a criminal violation of International Law:

Article 20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​

​

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

Most Respectfully,
R

the territory that was formerly under the British Mandate was held by three parties: Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

The British Mandate had no sovereignty.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation. There was no transfer of land or sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred

There is no "hatred" involved. Only resistance to colonial/occupation aggression.

 

[Hollie]

The British Mandate had no sovereignty.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation. There was no transfer of land or sovereignty.

Those are your usual copy and paste slogans because you don't understand the history of the area.

 

[Hollie]

There is no "hatred" involved. Only resistance to colonial/occupation aggression.

There is a hatred involved that is deeply rooted in Islamic politico-religious ideology.

 

[Hollie]

Reports such as what follows is why the US needs an immediate halt to taxpayers money used, wholly or in part, to the funding of Islamic terrorist "Palestinians".

Terror-supporting Palestinian school built by USAID spotlights worldwide problem for agency

A fundamental shift is needed in which the agency is incentivized to pay more attention to where its money is going, says Middle East Forum Washington project director.The post Terror-supporting

www.clevelandjewishnews.com

Three days after Khairy Alqam murdered seven people outside a synagogue in Jerusalem, the Al Umariya Secondary School for Girls in Qalqilya held a special ceremony to commemorate him. The school was established with U.S. funds.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provided funding for construction of the school in 2008, an agency spokesperson told JNS. Construction was completed in 2009. The last time it provided assistance was in 2016-2017 (principal training and technology to facilitate internet education), and according to USAID the United States no longer funds the institution.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: The Claim of Sovereignty
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In these contemporary times, territorial "sovereignty" is NOT always accompanied by a document, a certificate of transfer or a public ceremony. Sovereignty is established by o0ne state assumes the control by extending its laws and the territory becomes bound by the Rule of Law. The assumption of territorial sovereignty does not need to be set in stone, but there needs to be a boundary (demarcation) → the imaginary line which separates one nation from another.

The British Mandate had no sovereignty.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation. There was no transfer of land or sovereignty.

There is no "hatred" involved. Only resistance to colonial/occupation aggression.

(COMMENT)

In Posting #2146, Article 20 makes it clear that if one allegiance is induced or incitement to strike out with a violent intent, against some other allegiance is fraudulent and a violation of the Civil and Political rights of another. The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) cannot claim a lack of hatred as a defense and still (for instance) maintain the "Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund" to openly award the families of those who were involved in attacks on Israelis, in direct support of politically inspired policy violence or a hidden agenda.

This use of branding the struggle as some form of patriotic necessity for violence as if they were actually defending a particular parcel of land that they had or currently maintain the ultimate control, is invalid. Except for Area "A" the HoAP cannot demonstrate territorial control and the extension of their Rule of Law over any bounded territory. At least, not in the last century.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: The Claim of Sovereignty
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In these contemporary times, territorial "sovereignty" is NOT always accompanied by a document, a certificate of transfer or a public ceremony. Sovereignty is established by o0ne state assumes the control by extending its laws and the territory becomes bound by the Rule of Law. The assumption of territorial sovereignty does not need to be set in stone, but there needs to be a boundary (demarcation) → the imaginary line which separates one nation from another.



(COMMENT)

In Posting #2146, Article 20 makes it clear that if one allegiance is induced or incitement to strike out with a violent intent, against some other allegiance is fraudulent and a violation of the Civil and Political rights of another. The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) cannot claim a lack of hatred as a defense and still (for instance) maintain the "Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund" to openly award the families of those who were involved in attacks on Israelis, in direct support of politically inspired policy violence or a hidden agenda.

This use of branding the struggle as some form of patriotic necessity for violence as if they were actually defending a particular parcel of land that they had or currently maintain the ultimate control, is invalid. Except for Area "A" the HoAP cannot demonstrate territorial control and the extension of their Rule of Law over any bounded territory. At least, not in the last century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that the citizens of a territory do not have sovereignty?

 

[Hollie]

Are you saying that the citizens of a territory do not have sovereignty?

You're saying you don't understand there were never citizens of a loosely defined geographic area.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're saying you don't understand there were never citizens of a loosely defined geographic area.

Israeli bullshit, of course.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”

 

[Hollie]

Israeli bullshit, of course.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

So, no. You don't understand the definition of "citizen" thus you retreat to the same tired cut and paste spam.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore said:



And there he goes. A quick skedaddle. That old, worn out copy and paste, ipso facto slogan has been debunked so many times he drops it and skedaddles.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: The Claim of Sovereignty
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I realize that you have a reading comprehension problem. You read the words but cannot understand the meaning of the sentence.

citizen: In strictness, a term of municipal rather than international law, connoting membership of a political community with republican forms of government, but often employed to describe nationals...​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 pg 96​

Are you saying that the citizens of a territory do not have sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

The 1925 Citizenship Order was a creation of the British in conjunction with establishing a governmental mechanism to facilitate the furtherance of the Mandate. The citizenship discussed in the 1925 Citizenship Order was citizenship in the government used by the British to carry out the objectives of the Mandate. With the termination of the Mandate, the validity of the Citizenship Order dissolved.

Palestine was a "Legal Entity" and not a state.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”

(COMMENT)

Again, this is nothing more then a misinterpretation as to what the objective is. That is to say, the general population with residence in the territory subject to the Mandate, were not to be considered stateless. The population would have a mechanism that would perform the routine functions of a state, but not be a state. When you read the very first Article of the "Palestine Order in Council" (1922) it says:

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies,​

hereinafter described as Palestine.​

This is to say that the term "Palestine" is an abbreviated form for "the territories to which the Mandate." And again, this was supported by the determination of the Under-Secretary-General:

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians " III "
SUBTOPIC: The Claim of Sovereignty
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I realize that you have a reading comprehension problem. You read the words but cannot understand the meaning of the sentence.

citizen: In strictness, a term of municipal rather than international law, connoting membership of a political community with republican forms of government, but often employed to describe nationals...​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 pg 96​

(COMMENT)

The 1925 Citizenship Order was a creation of the British in conjunction with establishing a governmental mechanism to facilitate the furtherance of the Mandate. The citizenship discussed in the 1925 Citizenship Order was citizenship in the government used by the British to carry out the objectives of the Mandate. With the termination of the Mandate, the validity of the Citizenship Order dissolved.

View attachment 761783
Palestine was a "Legal Entity" and not a state.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is nothing more then a misinterpretation as to what the objective is. That is to say, the general population with residence in the territory subject to the Mandate, were not to be considered stateless. The population would have a mechanism that would perform the routine functions of a state, but not be a state. When you read the very first Article of the "Palestine Order in Council" (1922) it says:

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies,​

hereinafter described as Palestine.​

This is to say that the term "Palestine" is an abbreviated form for "the territories to which the Mandate." And again, this was supported by the determination of the Under-Secretary-General:


View attachment 761785

Most Respectfully,
R

Your pretzel logic is astounding.

Where does it say the citizenship would expire at the end of the Mandate? Hmmm?

Palestine is still there. The Palestinians are still the nationals of their defined territory. That status brings them certain rights as enshrined in international law.

Subsequent UN Resolutions state that the Palestinian people in Palestine have the right to:

Self determination without external interference.
Independence and sovereignty.
Territorial integrity.

What is your response to "without external interference?"

You post a whole page of external interference.

 

[Hollie]

Your pretzel logic is astounding.

Where does it say the citizenship would expire at the end of the Mandate? Hmmm?

Palestine is still there. The Palestinians are still the nationals of their defined territory. That status brings them certain rights as enshrined in international law.

Subsequent UN Resolutions state that the Palestinian people in Palestine have the right to:

Self determination without external interference.
Independence and sovereignty.
Territorial integrity.

What is your response to "without external interference?"

You post a whole page of external interference.

The Arabs-Moslems were never citizens. The rest of your copying and pasting amounts to just worn out slogans.