Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is one of the most unenlightened comments I've seen you repeat.

No surprise. The PA is a bantustan government.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is made up of it own constituency. The PA is NOT a set-aside on the basis of race.

It should be noted that several states within the Arab League are Shia majority but is ruled by Sunni. This is NOT a racial issue either.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Maybe if we just give them more money we can encourage this behaviour.


Fatah promises cruel terror and "war of the street", burning of Jewish towns
Itamar Marcus | Jan 13, 2020

• "With cleavers and knives, with grenades we announced a popular war"
• "I swear, you won't escape, my enemy"
• "We will light a fire under your feet! … We will cause volcanoes to erupt under your feet!"
• "Fatah of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades will return to be as it was!"
• All at event attended by Abbas' deputy Mahmoud Al-Aloul

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is one of the most unenlightened comments I've seen you repeat.

No surprise. The PA is a bantustan government.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is made up of it own constituency. The PA is NOT a set-aside on the basis of race.

It should be noted that several states within the Arab League are Shia majority but is ruled by Sunni. This is NOT a racial issue either.

View attachment 299995​

Most Respectfully,
R

False criteria. Racial discrimination is based on characteristics that cannot be changed. In Israel if you are born a Jew you are a Jew. If you are born a Palestinian you are a Palestinian. These are immutable, inherited characteristics. These are descent groups.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is one of the most unenlightened comments I've seen you repeat.

No surprise. The PA is a bantustan government.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is made up of it own constituency. The PA is NOT a set-aside on the basis of race.

It should be noted that several states within the Arab League are Shia majority but is ruled by Sunni. This is NOT a racial issue either.

View attachment 299995​

Most Respectfully,
R

False criteria. Racial discrimination is based on characteristics that cannot be changed. In Israel if you are born a Jew you are a Jew. If you are born a Palestinian you are a Palestinian. These are immutable, inherited characteristics. These are descent groups.

False premise.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think that you are mistaken on two counts.

FIRST: What is the general source for understanding the meaning of "racial discrimination."

racial discrimination The present international law on racial discrimination derives from
the U.N. Charter, which in art. 1(3) states that one of the Organization ’ s purposes is ‘promoting
and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion’, thus placing non-discrimination
at the very heart of the entire U.N. human rights system. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217 (III)) stipulates, in art. 2,
that its protection is to apply ‘without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status’. Provisions with similar effect appear in art. 2(1) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 ( 999 U.N.T.S. 171 ; see Civil and Political
Rights, International Covenant on ) and in art. 2(2) of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of the same date ( 993 U.N.T.S. 3 ; see Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on ).

SECOND: On this point, the change is NOT unchanging over time or characteristic that is unable to be changed.

Convert To Judaism Online (Reform or Conservative) through our online Jewish learning and conversion program.​

False criteria. Racial discrimination is based on characteristics that cannot be changed. In Israel, if you are born a Jew you are a Jew. If you are born a Palestinian you are a Palestinian. These are immutable, inherited characteristics. These are descent groups.

(COMMENT)

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian. That did not become a compound description until 11 December 2012 and the Memo by the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs pertaining to the status of Palestine. Remember → prior to December 1988, anyone born with the limits of the former territory under the Mandate for Palestine could be considered by some as Palestinian (not a citizenship designation). However, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" (not a true territorial designation).

• A/RES/43/177 Acknowledges • State of Palestine 1988
• A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/12/2012)​

However, if you were a resident of the West Bank or Arab Jerusalem between April 1950 thru July 1988, you were eligible for Jordanian citizenship.

I have noticed that the pro-Arab Palestinians are desperately trying to make this racial discrimination issue a key factor in the conflict. The fact of the matter is that the people on the outside border of sovereign Israel are not separated by race. They are separated by citizenship. That is not racial discrimination → but the exercise of sovereign control. The people outside Area "C" Settlements are separated by the Oslo Accord agreement with the Arab Palestinians.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are intentionally undermining the context of what I said. This is misinformation on your part.

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you (or your interpretation) of what I said, or the accepted description of the territory, it was defined:

PART I

.PRELIMINARY.​

Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

Anyone is free to read what I said, and then (as I did), put it in a historical sense (former territory under the Mandate). I did not say the mandate was a territory. I used the same legal framework as used in 1922.

Mandate
League of Nations
Written By:
See Article History
Alternative Title: mandated territory •

The mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.

I am not trying to confuse people at all. You are trying to imply something which was NOT said. You may also notice that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sometimes refers to the that in question as: "all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate." (See: ICJ The Historical Narrative of the Court • ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier”)

Again, anyone may read what I said, and read what you said, and compare them to any of the authority documents. Then they can make up their own mind as to who is intentionally attempting to confuse the issue.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

What country did the Mandate administer?

There was never a “country of Pally’land”. Inventing a place that never existed and then attempting to attribute the Mandate as administrator of that non-existent “country” suggests profound ignorance on your part of history and of the facts

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are intentionally undermining the context of what I said. This is misinformation on your part.

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you (or your interpretation) of what I said, or the accepted description of the territory, it was defined:

PART I

.PRELIMINARY.​

Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

Anyone is free to read what I said, and then (as I did), put it in a historical sense (former territory under the Mandate). I did not say the mandate was a territory. I used the same legal framework as used in 1922.

Mandate
League of Nations
Written By:
See Article History
Alternative Title: mandated territory •

The mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.

I am not trying to confuse people at all. You are trying to imply something which was NOT said. You may also notice that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sometimes refers to the that in question as: "all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate." (See: ICJ The Historical Narrative of the Court • ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier”)

Again, anyone may read what I said, and read what you said, and compare them to any of the authority documents. Then they can make up their own mind as to who is intentionally attempting to confuse the issue.


Most Respectfully,
R

.PRELIMINARY.

Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

1922 was when Palestine was occupied enemy territory. After 1924 it was not. There was a different body of laws. Why do you keep bringing up issues that no longer applied?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

What country did the Mandate administer?

There was never a “country of Pally’land”. Inventing a place that never existed and then attempting to attribute the Mandate as administrator of that non-existent “country” suggests profound ignorance on your part of history and of the facts

That was my point. What did the Mandate for Palestine administer if there was no Palestine?

 

[Hollie]

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

What country did the Mandate administer?

There was never a “country of Pally’land”. Inventing a place that never existed and then attempting to attribute the Mandate as administrator of that non-existent “country” suggests profound ignorance on your part of history and of the facts

That was my point. What did the Mandate for Palestine administer if there was no Palestine?

You're rather confused. It seems you know nothing of the history surrounding the Mandate.

I suspect that's why you refer to your invented "country of Pal'istan" not understandimg there never was such a country.

Shouldn't you take the time to learn some facts before making an argument?

All of this has been delineated for you dozens of times but you insist on making the same false claims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

It is what is implied. Many people believe that once there was no more Mandate, there was no more Palestine. The Mandate was irrelevant to the existence of Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

It is what is implied. Many people believe that once there was no more Mandate, there was no more Palestine. The Mandate was irrelevant to the existence of Palestine.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

There was never a "Magical kingdom of Pally'land" (Where Dreams Come True), as you like to portray it. You have this fantastical notion of Pally'land as some have with mythical lost city of Atlantis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No matter where you were born in the former territory under the Mandate, you are under the general description of Palestinian.

You are still trying to confuse people. The Mandate was not a "place." It had no sovereignty. It had no territory. It had no borders.The Mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to administer the country in the best interest of the Palestinians.

What country did the Mandate administer?

There was never a “country of Pally’land”. Inventing a place that never existed and then attempting to attribute the Mandate as administrator of that non-existent “country” suggests profound ignorance on your part of history and of the facts

That was my point. What did the Mandate for Palestine administer if there was no Palestine?

What did the Mandate for Palestine administer if there was no Palestine?

The Jewish homeland.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

It is what is implied. Many people believe that once there was no more Mandate, there was no more Palestine. The Mandate was irrelevant to the existence of Palestine.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

There was never a "Magical kingdom of Pally'land" (Where Dreams Come True), as you like to portray it. You have this fantastical notion of Pally'land as some have with mythical lost city of Atlantis.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

Israeli bullshit, of course. Palestine's international borders were defined by international treaties.

 

[Hollie]

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

It is what is implied. Many people believe that once there was no more Mandate, there was no more Palestine. The Mandate was irrelevant to the existence of Palestine.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

There was never a "Magical kingdom of Pally'land" (Where Dreams Come True), as you like to portray it. You have this fantastical notion of Pally'land as some have with mythical lost city of Atlantis.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

Israeli bullshit, of course. Palestine's international borders were defined by international treaties.

Disneyland also has borders. Is it a "country"?

As usual, you're still unable to identify when your invented "country of Pal'istan" ever existed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you even got this much wrong.

Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

1922 was when Palestine was occupied enemy territory. After 1924 it was not. There was a different body of laws. Why do you keep bringing up issues that no longer applied?

(COMMENT)

√ The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine provinces of the former Ottoman Empire was established on 23 October 1918 (after the Armistice of Mudros) and ended on 1 July 1920 (after the San Remo Convention) with the establishment of the Civil Administration.

This area was identified, in Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, as "respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers." It was these territories, in the Levantine provinces of the former Ottoman Empire (from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey), that Turkey renounces all rights and title in favor of the Allied Powers.

From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. The Treaty of Lausanne was NOT a body of laws that governed the territories of the entity known as "Palestine." The Treaty of Lausanne set the conditions which legitimized the post-War Administration of the territories. The laws governing the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied evolved over time as do most national laws throughout the world. But the authority of those laws rested with the High Commissioner (acting as the highest ranking authority representing the United Kingdom in the mandated territories of Palestine and Transjordan).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Why are you being so obstinant?

That was my point. What did the Mandate for Palestine administer if there was no Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was (during the period of the Mandate for Palestine) a legal entity but it is NOT a sovereign state. Palestine was a territory administered under mandate by the British Government. The British Government was entirely responsible both for its internal administration, domestic affairs and for its foreign relations pertaining to the territory as named by the Palestine Order in Council.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

I did not say the Mandate was the territory. However, there are a number of ways it can be described.

It is what is implied. Many people believe that once there was no more Mandate, there was no more Palestine. The Mandate was irrelevant to the existence of Palestine.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

There was never a "Magical kingdom of Pally'land" (Where Dreams Come True), as you like to portray it. You have this fantastical notion of Pally'land as some have with mythical lost city of Atlantis.

A loosely defined geographic area called Palestine is not in question.

Israeli bullshit, of course. Palestine's international borders were defined by international treaties.

That definition vested all sovereignty to the Jewish Nation.

And no you run in circles...

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Palestine, in any context, was NOT a word to be found in the entire Treaty of Lausanne.

Palestine's international borders were defined by international treaties.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 3.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.​

I want you to take note that in the opening sentence in Article 3, the landscape covered by the words of description → "From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia" - completely includes the modern-day mantra → "From the River to the Sea."

I would very much appreciate your knowledge of some treaty identifying Palestine's borders. Who signed as the authority (competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty) on behalf of Palestine?

Without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip, the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979) covers that Area. And without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967, the international boundary between Jordan and Israel is set forth in the Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994). But neither Treaty actually makes reference to the "Palestine Entity."

without prejudice, adv. (I5c) Without loss of any rights;
in a way that does not harm or cancel the legal rights or
privileges of a party <dismissed without prejudice>.
​

As far as all this discussion of what territory is called what, the fact of the matter is that - YES - the treaties on the matter of permanent international boundaries that are current today, are all that really counts.



Most Respectfully,
R