Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,434
Reaction score
2,759
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well, you could get partial credit. But most of the reply is incorre3ct.


The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.
(COMMENT)

This layman's interpretation is based on Article 49, Fourth Gevena Convention (GCIV)(1949), wherein, the applicable clauses are ambiguous. Whatever the case, the 1949 Law and interpretations CANNOT be retroactively applied to actions taken prior. Article 49(2) gives an exception:

EXCERPT • Article 49(2) GCIV said:
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.
Source: Article 49, Fourth Gevena Convention (GCIV)(1949)

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.
(COMMENT)

This is entirely screwed-up. About the only thing you got right was the part: "Allied Powers decided"

◈ The Allied Powers DID NOT divide the region into five states. It created three (3) Mandates (Article 1 Franco-British Convention of December 1920) .​
✦ The French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand.​
✦ The British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other.​
Comment Note:​
There were several other Mandates, but no pertaining to the topic under discussion.​

People assume the citizenship of the territory. On 11 April 1921, three distinct Arab districts, East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia, were assembled under a single political territory to be known as the Emirate of Transjordan (British Protectorate equivalent), and with the Emir Abdullah. The people of the Emirate assumed the citizenship of the Emirate.


The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.
(COMMENT)

There has been "Much Ado About" inalienable and inviolable rights. And while the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UDHR) establishes a common understanding such rights, it only urges Governments to accept those principles, the UDHR is NOT LAW. "There are nine (9) core international human rights instruments." The 'rights' that you have most often invoked are those found in the
"International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR); or those documented in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (SESCR). These are the laws.

The rights pertaining to the broad category of "self determination" - "independence and sovereignty" - and "territorial integrity" are very loosely described in the UN Charter. The key here is that the CCPR covers those rights in the specifics.

The Arab Palestinians have not territory of their own, or as you say: "people inside their defined territory" If the Arab Palestinians had such a defined territory, it would have already been brought to the surface. The idea that the Arab Palestinians claim the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine" as their defined territory is absolutely ludacris.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
(COMMENT)

Again, this is a statement with no real context. It sounds right, but then applied to what. The Arab Palestinians are, themselves confused, as to what their boundaries are. Don't talk about international boundaries and them make me recite how you twisted the phrase. Remember, prior to 1948, Palestine was a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) administratively established to accommodate the Mandate authority. The indigenous population was citizens of a territory that they had neither "rights" nor "title."

SIGIL PAIR.png


Most Respectfully,
R
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,434
Reaction score
2,759
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Pure subterfuge.

Israel was mentioned in the cover letters but not in the agreements themselves.
(COMMENT)

This is nonsense. The Armistice Agreements were signed by the respective governments. Today, there are no active Armistice agreements in the Region, so the point is irrelevant.

Also, the international borders of Palestine with its neighbors were mentioned. No borders for Israel were mentioned.
(COMMENT)

Again, Armistice Agreements deal with military forces and a static Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). It is not a permanent political agreement. In the case of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, the Treaties that deactivated the respective treaties established the boundaries.

Also, the agreements stated peace in Palestine. They did not say peace in Israel or peace in Israel/Palestine.
:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :confused-84::confused-84:
(COMMENT)

Again, Armistice Agreements pertain to the cessation of hostilities along a static FEBA. It is the Treaty that establishes the criteria for peace.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well, you could get partial credit. But most of the reply is incorre3ct.


The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.
(COMMENT)

This layman's interpretation is based on Article 49, Fourth Gevena Convention (GCIV)(1949), wherein, the applicable clauses are ambiguous. Whatever the case, the 1949 Law and interpretations CANNOT be retroactively applied to actions taken prior. Article 49(2) gives an exception:

EXCERPT • Article 49(2) GCIV said:
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 Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.
(COMMENT)

This is entirely screwed-up. About the only thing you got right was the part: "Allied Powers decided"

◈ The Allied Powers DID NOT divide the region into five states. It created three (3) Mandates (Article 1 Franco-British Convention of December 1920) .​
✦ The French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand.​
✦ The British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other.​
Comment Note:​
There were several other Mandates, but no pertaining to the topic under discussion.​

People assume the citizenship of the territory. On 11 April 1921, three distinct Arab districts, East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia, were assembled under a single political territory to be known as the Emirate of Transjordan (British Protectorate equivalent), and with the Emir Abdullah. The people of the Emirate assumed the citizenship of the Emirate.


The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.
(COMMENT)

There has been "Much Ado About" inalienable and inviolable rights. And while the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UDHR) establishes a common understanding such rights, it only urges Governments to accept those principles, the UDHR is NOT LAW. "There are nine (9) core international human rights instruments." The 'rights' that you have most often invoked are those found in the
"International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR); or those documented in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (SESCR). These are the laws.

The rights pertaining to the broad category of "self determination" - "independence and sovereignty" - and "territorial integrity" are very loosely described in the UN Charter. The key here is that the CCPR covers those rights in the specifics.

The Arab Palestinians have not territory of their own, or as you say: "people inside their defined territory" If the Arab Palestinians had such a defined territory, it would have already been brought to the surface. The idea that the Arab Palestinians claim the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine" as their defined territory is absolutely ludacris.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
(COMMENT)

Again, this is a statement with no real context. It sounds right, but then applied to what. The Arab Palestinians are, themselves confused, as to what their boundaries are. Don't talk about international boundaries and them make me recite how you twisted the phrase. Remember, prior to 1948, Palestine was a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) administratively established to accommodate the Mandate authority. The indigenous population was citizens of a territory that they had neither "rights" nor "title."

SIGIL PAIR.png


Most Respectfully,
R
The indigenous population was citizens of a territory that they had neither "rights" nor "title."
You don't make any sense.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
The Arab Palestinians have not territory of their own, or as you say: "people inside their defined territory" If the Arab Palestinians had such a defined territory, it would have already been brought to the surface. The idea that the Arab Palestinians claim the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine" as their defined territory is absolutely ludacris.
Explain how this is not true.

Deputy Secretary of Fatah Revolutionary Council, Majed Al-Fatiani: "It is not enough that only the residents of Jerusalem stand against [the occupation] in its streets, alleys, and neighborhoods... This act needs to spread over all of the Palestinian land between the [Jordan] River and the [Mediterranean] Sea. Our identity is between the river and the sea. Our national popular sovereignty is between the river and the sea."

 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well, you could get partial credit. But most of the reply is incorre3ct.


The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.
(COMMENT)

This layman's interpretation is based on Article 49, Fourth Gevena Convention (GCIV)(1949), wherein, the applicable clauses are ambiguous. Whatever the case, the 1949 Law and interpretations CANNOT be retroactively applied to actions taken prior. Article 49(2) gives an exception:

EXCERPT • Article 49(2) GCIV said:
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 Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.
(COMMENT)

This is entirely screwed-up. About the only thing you got right was the part: "Allied Powers decided"

◈ The Allied Powers DID NOT divide the region into five states. It created three (3) Mandates (Article 1 Franco-British Convention of December 1920) .​
✦ The French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand.​
✦ The British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other.​
Comment Note:​
There were several other Mandates, but no pertaining to the topic under discussion.​

People assume the citizenship of the territory. On 11 April 1921, three distinct Arab districts, East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia, were assembled under a single political territory to be known as the Emirate of Transjordan (British Protectorate equivalent), and with the Emir Abdullah. The people of the Emirate assumed the citizenship of the Emirate.


The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.
(COMMENT)

There has been "Much Ado About" inalienable and inviolable rights. And while the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UDHR) establishes a common understanding such rights, it only urges Governments to accept those principles, the UDHR is NOT LAW. "There are nine (9) core international human rights instruments." The 'rights' that you have most often invoked are those found in the
"International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR); or those documented in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (SESCR). These are the laws.

The rights pertaining to the broad category of "self determination" - "independence and sovereignty" - and "territorial integrity" are very loosely described in the UN Charter. The key here is that the CCPR covers those rights in the specifics.

The Arab Palestinians have not territory of their own, or as you say: "people inside their defined territory" If the Arab Palestinians had such a defined territory, it would have already been brought to the surface. The idea that the Arab Palestinians claim the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine" as their defined territory is absolutely ludacris.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
(COMMENT)

Again, this is a statement with no real context. It sounds right, but then applied to what. The Arab Palestinians are, themselves confused, as to what their boundaries are. Don't talk about international boundaries and them make me recite how you twisted the phrase. Remember, prior to 1948, Palestine was a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) administratively established to accommodate the Mandate authority. The indigenous population was citizens of a territory that they had neither "rights" nor "title."

SIGIL PAIR.png


Most Respectfully,
R
The indigenous population was citizens of a territory that they had neither "rights" nor "title."
You don't make any sense.
You're confused by clearly defined language.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
The Arab Palestinians have not territory of their own, or as you say: "people inside their defined territory" If the Arab Palestinians had such a defined territory, it would have already been brought to the surface. The idea that the Arab Palestinians claim the entirety of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine" as their defined territory is absolutely ludacris.
Explain how this is not true.

Deputy Secretary of Fatah Revolutionary Council, Majed Al-Fatiani: "It is not enough that only the residents of Jerusalem stand against [the occupation] in its streets, alleys, and neighborhoods... This act needs to spread over all of the Palestinian land between the [Jordan] River and the [Mediterranean] Sea. Our identity is between the river and the sea. Our national popular sovereignty is between the river and the sea."

Did someone in the Fatah Revolutionary council (keep the laughter to a minimum, kuffar), waving a magic koran make something true?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,434
Reaction score
2,759
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is an example of incitement to violence. It is what makes the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) subject to the exceptions.

◈ Must be lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant ("International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR).​
◈ Must not represent national security, public order, or public health threat.​

Explain how this is not true.

Deputy Secretary of Fatah Revolutionary Council, Majed Al-Fatiani: "It is not enough that only the residents of Jerusalem stand against [the occupation] in its streets, alleys, and neighborhoods... This act needs to spread over all of the Palestinian land between the [Jordan] River and the [Mediterranean] Sea. Our identity is between the river and the sea. Our national popular sovereignty is between the river and the sea."
(COMMENT)
This probably is true (to me very believable) that the Deputy-Secretary of the Fatah Revolutionary Council promoted and expressed these remarks.
◈ This is just a political statement that promotes the incitement of criminal acts of violence.​
◈ This is just a political statement that promotes extremism and intolerance.​
◈ This is just a political statement that promotes poses a growing danger to the human rights of the Jewish People.​
◈ This is just a political statement that threatens the social and economic development of all States,​
It is not a matter of truth that we should be concerned with. It is a matter of spreading the promotion of "discrimination, hostility or violence." One of the Great Human Rights Laws that P F Tinmore beats us over the head with is:
Article 20 CCPR said:
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.

Finally, the Fatah Revolutionary Council statement is that of an objective that if carried-out would jeopardize the only safe haven for the Jewish National Home that would accept without reservation the immigration of Jewish people being oppressed by such governments that target these people for whatever the reason. The execution of spreading such intent between the river and the sea will only promote an atmosphere of distrust and hatred.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
◈ Must be lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant ("International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (CCPR).
That is a good read. If Israel followed that, most of the problems would take care of themselves.
Islamic ideology as delineated in the Hamas Charter refutes your comment.
Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.
Indeed, your usual deflection.

Ignoring the reality of Islamist ideology doesn’t lessen the dangers presented by the ideology.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
It looks like the status quo is the path sought by Fatah.




PA defies coming Biden administration: Palestinian terrorist prisoners will continue to receive “full rights”


Itamar Marcus, Nan Jacques Zilberdik, and Maurice Hirsch, Adv. | Nov 26, 2020

The PA apparently deceived The New York Times, which falsely reported:

“Seeking Restart With Biden, Palestinians Eye End to Prisoner Payments.”
Jibril Rajoub, Fatah Central Committee Sec.:
“In no way will any decision be made that detracts from any right [the prisoners] receive today. On the contrary - if we want to change it, we will make it better.”

Commissioner of Prisoners’ Affairs, Qadri Abu Bakr:
“There will be no bargaining over the prisoners’ rights… the prisoners’ rights will be realized. We also deny that the prisoners’ allowances will be paid through social institutions. These news [reports in the NY Times] are completely unfounded.”
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Replacing the the Islamic gee-had with modern culture.



Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s stop at a West Bank winery Thursday is the first visit by a U.S. secretary of state to an Israeli settlement — and another sign of the Trump administration’s move away from long-standing principles and positions that had guided the approach of previous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Oh, my. Welfare contributions to the world's largest Islamic terrorist welfare agency are lacking. Those poor, oppressed Islamic terrorist misfits convicted of murder and other violent crimes as a part of the Islamic gee-had may not get their Fatah fun-money. A push over the "cliff’s edge" is just what they need.



https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/un-palestine-agency-on-edge-due-to-financial-crisis/2057279 to financial crisis


The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said on Thursday it is on the "cliff’s edge" due to lack of funding.

Speaking at a news conference, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said that the agency is facing a great financial crisis.

"UNRWA received this year the lowest level of contributions since 2012, at a time when the needs of refugees are compounded by the effects of the pandemic on their meager resources," Lazzarini said.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
While Israel has an apparent willingness for normalization (reference to the Pal territories), there is still the issue of two separate and competing entities, Hamas and Fatah, with differing interests and agendas. All of the peace or normalization efforts with one or more Pal representatives have failed. With the Pals now aligned with Iran and alienating Arab nations in the region, the Pals have fewer options now than in the past,






When it comes to its conflict with Palestine, Israel has "moved from annexation to normalisation", foreign minister Gabi Ashkenazi has said, stressing that "annexation is off the table".

As it normalised relations with the UAE and Bahrain by signing the US-brokered peace deal on September 15, Israel has agreed to halt annexations in the West Bank in Palestine.

"I have said...again and again in almost every international arena...that three months ago, Israel has moved from annexation to normalisation. And politically, I believe in it. I think it is the right direction. We have to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that we will separate from the Palestine," Ashkenazi, Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, told Khaleej Times in an exclusive interview on Thursday.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Sheikh'n the house.

The Arabs-Moslems masquerading as Pal'istanians' are expert at blaming everyone but themselves for their self-created failures.




Sheikh Kamal Khatib: Saudi Arabia Complicit in Plan to Abolish Palestinians' "Right of Return"
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
The result of an insular, cult-like society that glorifies death and destruction.




Israeli forces have shot and killed a Palestinian man at a checkpoint after an alleged car-ramming attack outside of Jerusalem, according to local media and police reports.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top