Who Are The Palestinians?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not at all accurate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

"OK let's be honest." Indeed.

The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.

(COMMENT)

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.

The territory was divided up by the Allied Powers into Mandates. Each Mandate would assume governmental responsibilities of the respective territories.

In 1948, Israel fought its War of Independence (WoI), for it right to self-determination --- as guided by the hand of the United Nations, under A/RES/181(II). What the consequences of that WoI was, included four separate and distinctive Armistice Arrangements with the parties to the conflict; along the forward edge of the battle area.

Included in the outcomes, the West Bank was taken by the Jordanians and the Gaza Strip was taken by the Egyptians.

In 1967, Israel seized the two territories and set-up an occupation.

The State of Palestine was created in 1988; while the territory was under occupation. Israel never invaded the State of Palestine.

The Hostilities emanating from the Palestinians dates back to early 1948. See A/AC.21.10 16 February 1948. The scope and nature of the belligerence of the HoAP has nothing to do with the defense of their country, since their was no Palestinian Sovereignty in February 1948. The hostility is open defiance to the UN decision to support a Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.

With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic. European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project. Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project. Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.

The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the Ravshatz (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO". CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers. Are these EJICs civilians? Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way. (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).

Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory. Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians. Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

The Security Council,

Considering the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,

Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,

Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,

1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/

3. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​

Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.

Like which ones?

 

[P F Tinmore]

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
-----------------------
Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?

Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.

Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.

No it didn't.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not at all accurate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

"OK let's be honest." Indeed.

The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.

(COMMENT)

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.

The territory was divided up by the Allied Powers into Mandates. Each Mandate would assume governmental responsibilities of the respective territories.

In 1948, Israel fought its War of Independence (WoI), for it right to self-determination --- as guided by the hand of the United Nations, under A/RES/181(II). What the consequences of that WoI was, included four separate and distinctive Armistice Arrangements with the parties to the conflict; along the forward edge of the battle area.

Included in the outcomes, the West Bank was taken by the Jordanians and the Gaza Strip was taken by the Egyptians.

In 1967, Israel seized the two territories and set-up an occupation.

The State of Palestine was created in 1988; while the territory was under occupation. Israel never invaded the State of Palestine.

The Hostilities emanating from the Palestinians dates back to early 1948. See A/AC.21.10 16 February 1948. The scope and nature of the belligerence of the HoAP has nothing to do with the defense of their country, since their was no Palestinian Sovereignty in February 1948. The hostility is open defiance to the UN decision to support a Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.​

That is true but they did not claim that land for themselves. They held it in trust until the people could stand alone.

Britain violated that principle which caused the conflict that we see today.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.

With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic. European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project. Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project. Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.

The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the Ravshatz (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO". CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers. Are these EJICs civilians? Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way. (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).

Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory. Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians. Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.

They did not exist in 1960 as they were Jordanian and had demonstrated their self determination in 1949, they then gave this up when they attacked Jordan with the intention of taking the country by force.

At the same time the same criteria enforces Israel's rights to defend themselves against HoAP attacks with as much force as they deem necessary after they were given the land by its legal owners/rulers in 1923. This negates your claim of colonisation as the arab muslims have been proven to be illegal immigrants, alien insurgents and terrorists.

If the Jews are on their land legally acquired under INTERNATIONAL LAW then they are civilians, and it is the arab muslims that are the illegal colonisers and should be forced to move back where they came from.


You are using heavily manipulated cut and pastes again without providing a link to your source, making you guilty of a breach of zone 2 rules.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

The Security Council,

Considering the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,

Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,

Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,

1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/

3. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​

Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.

Like which ones?

Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.

 

[Phoenall]

Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?

Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.

Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.

No it didn't.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Figure that out and you will get your answer

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not at all accurate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

"OK let's be honest." Indeed.

The Palestinians are not hostile. They are defending their country.

(COMMENT)

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.

The territory was divided up by the Allied Powers into Mandates. Each Mandate would assume governmental responsibilities of the respective territories.

In 1948, Israel fought its War of Independence (WoI), for it right to self-determination --- as guided by the hand of the United Nations, under A/RES/181(II). What the consequences of that WoI was, included four separate and distinctive Armistice Arrangements with the parties to the conflict; along the forward edge of the battle area.

Included in the outcomes, the West Bank was taken by the Jordanians and the Gaza Strip was taken by the Egyptians.

In 1967, Israel seized the two territories and set-up an occupation.

The State of Palestine was created in 1988; while the territory was under occupation. Israel never invaded the State of Palestine.

The Hostilities emanating from the Palestinians dates back to early 1948. See A/AC.21.10 16 February 1948. The scope and nature of the belligerence of the HoAP has nothing to do with the defense of their country, since their was no Palestinian Sovereignty in February 1948. The hostility is open defiance to the UN decision to support a Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the territory under question, was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Palestinians --- or any of the other Arab contingents. The Ottoman/Turks relinquished it all to the Principle Allied Powers.​

That is true but they did not claim that land for themselves. They held it in trust until the people could stand alone.

Britain violated that principle which caused the conflict that we see today.

Read the mandate for Palestine properly, and not just the British Palestinian mandate

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.

With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic. European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project. Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project. Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.

The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the Ravshatz (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO". CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers. Are these EJICs civilians? Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way. (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).

Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory. Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians. Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.

They did not exist in 1960 as they were Jordanian and had demonstrated their self determination in 1949, they then gave this up when they attacked Jordan with the intention of taking the country by force.

At the same time the same criteria enforces Israel's rights to defend themselves against HoAP attacks with as much force as they deem necessary after they were given the land by its legal owners/rulers in 1923. This negates your claim of colonisation as the arab muslims have been proven to be illegal immigrants, alien insurgents and terrorists.

If the Jews are on their land legally acquired under INTERNATIONAL LAW then they are civilians, and it is the arab muslims that are the illegal colonisers and should be forced to move back where they came from.


You are using heavily manipulated cut and pastes again without providing a link to your source, making you guilty of a breach of zone 2 rules.

The Palestinians have existed since the Romans named the province Palestina. As a negotiating party with Britain for their independence they have existed since at least 1921:

PALESTINE.
​

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​

​

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:


​

"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

The Security Council,

Considering the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,

Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,

Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,

1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/

3. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​

Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.

Like which ones?

Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.

IOW, you don't have jack shit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.

Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.

No it didn't.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Figure that out and you will get your answer

Did that. Now you need to do it.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.

With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic. European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project. Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project. Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.

The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the Ravshatz (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO". CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers. Are these EJICs civilians? Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way. (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).

Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory. Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians. Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.

They did not exist in 1960 as they were Jordanian and had demonstrated their self determination in 1949, they then gave this up when they attacked Jordan with the intention of taking the country by force.

At the same time the same criteria enforces Israel's rights to defend themselves against HoAP attacks with as much force as they deem necessary after they were given the land by its legal owners/rulers in 1923. This negates your claim of colonisation as the arab muslims have been proven to be illegal immigrants, alien insurgents and terrorists.

If the Jews are on their land legally acquired under INTERNATIONAL LAW then they are civilians, and it is the arab muslims that are the illegal colonisers and should be forced to move back where they came from.


You are using heavily manipulated cut and pastes again without providing a link to your source, making you guilty of a breach of zone 2 rules.

The Palestinians have existed since the Romans named the province Palestina. As a negotiating party with Britain for their independence they have existed since at least 1921:

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:


​

"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

Wrong again Abdul, if you look at the history you will find that Palestine was so named by the Romans as an insult to the Jews. This then went further and the term Palestinian came to be reserved for the Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The rise of islam took on the use of the term and they used it much as you use the term Zionist or Israeli today, as a RACIST PROFANITY.

By the way they were called Palestinian arab delegation by the LoN, they themselves preferred to be called Syrians

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

The Security Council,

Considering the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,

Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,

Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,

1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/

3. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​

Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.

Like which ones?

Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.

IOW, you don't have jack shit.

Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ? That was the main one they singled out for special mention.

 

[Phoenall]

And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.

No it didn't.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Figure that out and you will get your answer

Did that. Now you need to do it.

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thanks for the link.

The Security Council,

Considering the urgent need to spare the civil populations and the prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle East additional sufferings,

Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war,

Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 1/ should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,

1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;2/

3. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council.​

Which they have, but hamas refuses to comply with any UN resolution.

Like which ones?

Every single one of them that the P.A. signed up to last year.

IOW, you don't have jack shit.

Then why haven't they accepted peace talks and negotiated mutual borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel ? That was the main one they singled out for special mention.

They already have borders with Jordan and Egypt.

Where is the border dispute with Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You need to do some research --- maybe attend some seminars.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK let's be honest. That is not all I said. You're cherry picking.

You will notice that I cited Article 68, which penalizes "protected persons" who attempt to do harm to the Occupying Power. You will notice that I cited four (4) major citations relative to "civilians" and "protected persons." All four must be adhered to "simultaneously." You just can't pick and choose.

According to your hero, RoccoR:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.​

Who Are The Palestinians Page 357 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(COMMENT)

It is clear that the UN Security Council Resolution 237 stipulates in a binding fashion that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 be applied to the territories that came under occupation in 1967. It does not give any special exemption for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct hostile operations against the Occupation Power without facing criminal prosecution.

The HoAP which target Israeli Civilians --- does so at their own peril. The HoAP lose their "protected persons" status and become subject to Article 68 Sanctions.

PS: Terrorist, Insurgents, Jihadist and Fedayeen, conducting operations, (any Islamic Resistance Movement) are considered 4th Generation Warfare, Asymmetric combatants and not protected persons.​

Most Respectfully,
R

1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to the Palestinians and it states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

​

(COMMENT)

The same international community of nations that wrote the "non-binding" 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), also wrote the authority for the creation of the Jewish National Home, and the immigration of all Jewish People willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

Just as the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) stipulates that "All peoples have the right to self-determination," so it is that it equally applies to the Jewish People specially recognized by the Applied Powers to immigrate into the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, the resolution legitimizes national liberation struggles, including the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of European Jew Invader and Colonizer (EJIC) oppression.

(COMMENT)

This is merely a verbal soup of words to justify a special advantage resulting from Palestinian aggression against a decree by the International Community; justifying the use of force to impose their own international boundaries --- as a means of solving international boundary disputes.

This is to confuse the issue that the Mandatory had full powers of legislation (ability to make laws) and of administration (control the executive branch of government under a High Commissioner) for the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

It is NOT a right --- it DOES NOT legitimizes ---- Palestinian attempts/actions to rid themselves of Internationally authorized and Internationally facilitated Jewish immigration for close settlement by the Jewish People on the land.

With respect to the classification of EJICs as civilians or combatants, it is problematic. European Jews settled Palestine in a colonial project. Whether sanctioned by the LoN/UN or not, it is, by definition, a colonial project. Though the settlement of the New World by Portugal and Spain was sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope) through the Treaty of Tordesillas, it cannot be said that the settlement of the New World was not a colonial project.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter whether the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) considers the International Authorization for Jewish Immigration as a "colonial project" or not. The HoAP had no sovereign authority to oppose the immigration effort on territory that renounced formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers by both the Ottoman Empire (Armistice of Mudros - 1918 surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica) and the Turkish Republic (Treaty of Sèvres at 10 August 1920).

The classification of individual EJICs as civilians or combatants is particularly problematic when the inhabitants of the settlements in the Occupied Territories are considered. For example, the Ravshatz (Hebrew acronym for: Civilian Security Officers in Coordination with the IDF — "CSO". CSOs are armed, they lead armed groups of settlers and can even give orders (as if military officer) to IDF soldiers. Are these EJICs civilians? Frantz Fanon in "The Wretched of the Earth" concluded that since the colonizer considered all of the colonized (male and female) a present threat if adult and future threat if a child and subject to killing, the colonized had to consider the colonizer's population in the same way. (Frantz Fanon was of mixed race and was most known his support for the Algerians in their fight against the French).

​

​

(COMMENT)

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations: Article 43.

Article 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
​

It does not matter if Law Enforcement and Security personnel are (as they usually are) labeled as "civilians" or not. They are protected against HoAP from offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty​

ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]​

• 
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. ...
  • 
    The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

No matter how you shift the definition, the use of armed force against the the forces for peace, is generally prohibited; both by International Customary Law and International Humanitarian Law.

Finally, one could use Alan Dershowitz's "continuum of civilianality" theory. Dershowitz believes that civilians openly resisting or contravening Israeli policy e.g. demonstrating breaking the blockade etc., are not quite civilians. Conversely, EJIC civilians actively settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem might be considered as contributing to conquest, hence not quite civilians.

(COMMENT)

This is nonsense!

You don't need theory: Just look at Posting #3564, of this Thread and you will see how the International Community defines civilians (not to be confused with "protected persons").

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

No it didn't.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Figure that out and you will get your answer

Did that. Now you need to do it.

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What in the hell are you talking about.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Figure that out and you will get your answer

Did that. Now you need to do it.

When did the state of Palestine come into existence according to International law ? Or are you unable to answer this question truthfully ?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

(COMMENT)

While the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) had some minor impact on the Citizenship Order relative to the territory to which the Mandate Applied, (covered in the Citizenship Order of 1925), ---- it had absolutely nothing to do with the State of Palestine or any Palestinian Sovereignty prior to 1988.

You overuse this "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" much to often. It is poorly written and simply not applicable in some cases. For instance, the Genesis of Citizenship in Israel is simply the Declaration of Independence of Israel and the establishment of its sovereignty. The Treaty of Lausanne, written by the same community of authors as the Allied Powers, had nothing to do with it. It did not change much that was already in effect and did not put anything new in effect relative to Middle East Sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Now define what the Jews meant by settlers, and where they were settling ?

Sderot was founded in 1951 on lands that belonged to the Palestinian Arab village of Najd[6]and is located a few miles south of the village's ruins. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were driven out[7] to Gaza. It began as a transit camp called Gabim Dorot for Kurdish and Persian Jewish immigrants, numbering 80 families,[8] as part of a chain of settlements designed to block infiltration from Gaza.

Sderot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And until the arab muslims decide to comply with the UN charter and their own promises then it will stay Israeli. And don't forget that Egypt signed a treaty with Israel setting the borders in place, and Sderot is on the Israeli side of that border.

No it didn't.

Egypt Israel Peace Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then what is this

Good question. Where did Israel and Egypt get the authority to negotiate Palestine's border?

What does Israel's border with Egypt have to do with Palestine ?? You're living on a different planet still


"The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip"

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia