Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

Who stopped the Palestinians from voting for the candidates they wanted. The only nations that have illegally exerted external influence on the Palestinians have been arab muslim ones, and they are still doing so today. We see Syria sending hamas weapons to attack Israel with, we see iran sending weapons to hamas to attack Israel with both illegal external interference in the running of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.

As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.

There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine. Just tory.[/]
There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.

The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.

Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.

NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????


PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass

.......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well

There was never a nation of Palestine before 1988

The only Palestinians were the Jews until 1960 when Arafat stole the term to give the arab muslims a legitimacy

They had no leaders, no monetary unit, no passports, no capital city, no GDP and no land so how were they a nation

They were like the bush on Oz that is just a place, or the Gobi desert.

What complete SHIT

 

[Phoenall]

I can remember after the 1948 war when it said that Israel occupied Palestine. It was changed to controlled territory.

As in occupied PARTS OF PALESTINE, get it right. And it still does not mean that a nation or state of Palestine existed before 1988.

There NEVER was any nation or state of Palestine. Just tory.[/]
There always was a nation,people and state of Palestine and the sight of seeing thousands of Australians....watching and supporting Palestine last night in their Asian Cup match against Iraq.....was Great to Behold.

The Jews stole Palestine as they slyly used anti-semetism by the "White" Western European Christians....who reviled them...the Zionists used Barbarity and Murder on an uncurspecting nation......who of all people had helped and got on with jews.

Israel NEVER EXISTED IN ANY FORM UNTIL 1948 you mean't to say.......in that you would have been correct.

NOW REMIND ME AGAIN,WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE AREA<THE JEWS WANTED TO CARVE UP AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES ????????????????????


PALESTINE........thanks for that.................Dumb Ass

.......You Jews....!!!!!!!Reality and Telling the Truth....were never you strong points......Liars and twister's of the facts and truth,you do well

There was never a nation of Palestine before 1988

The only Palestinians were the Jews until 1960 when Arafat stole the term to give the arab muslims a legitimacy

They had no leaders, no monetary unit, no passports, no capital city, no GDP and no land so how were they a nation

They were like the bush on Oz that is just a place, or the Gobi desert.

What complete SHIT

Only to BRAINWASHED ISLAMONAZI ILLITERATES that are told that the truth is Israeli propaganda and that the Palestinians have owned Palestine for the last 2000 years. Isn't that what you have been told by your imam and clerics, and that the Jews are the invaders and land thieves taking Palestinian land and homes. Clearly you have not heard about the Jews that owned Jerusalem prior to 1948, or the ones that owned Hebron, Bethlehem, Nazareth in fact most major towns and cities were owned by the Jews, the arab muslims just rented the hovels they lived in. That is the truth that ISLAMONAZI LIARS and TERRORISTS don't want to be told because it destroys their legitimacy and claims to the land.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:

"...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.

I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.

In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.

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, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."

Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:

"...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.

I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.

In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.

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, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."

Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

If you bother to read UN res 242 you will see that the word ALL is not present when dealing with the occupied territories. And further to this you will see that the term after negotiations on mutual borders is. The ISLAMONAZI's grasped the French version because of French syntax and grammar that was in their favour, while the official version was written in English.
Anyone that attempts to use UN res 242 is advised to look at the authors notes on what each clause means, and to study those notes before trying to post half truths and outright lies.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:

"...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.

I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.

In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.

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, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."

Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

If you bother to read UN res 242 you will see that the word ALL is not present when dealing with the occupied territories. And further to this you will see that the term after negotiations on mutual borders is. The ISLAMONAZI's grasped the French version because of French syntax and grammar that was in their favour, while the official version was written in English.
Anyone that attempts to use UN res 242 is advised to look at the authors notes on what each clause means, and to study those notes before trying to post half truths and outright lies.

It doesn't need to, that's already covered;

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are getting ahead of the game. We haven't dealt with the Palestinian's territorial integrity and illegal external interference.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation of International law, but it omits or ignores the question of the legitimacy of armed resistance to occupation and that well worn phrase, "one man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter" This article, although dated, sums it up nicely:

"...This is the question of the right of a people to resist an aggressor and/or an oppressor, and the legitimacy of such resistance. I would argue that according to international law today, Israel has no rights to or in the Occupied territories of Palestine. According to the same international law, the occupation ought to have ceased one year after its beginning, that is by June 1968. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, Resolution 242 in November 1967.

I would contend that the continuing presence of Israel in these occupied territories, its building of settlements and the transfer of a huge Jewish population into it, and an infrastructure built from Palestinian assets to serve those settlements, its control over the use of land and water, and its continuing oppression of the indigenous population, should be classified as a colonialist venture. From the Palestinian point of view, the Israeli policies and practices are formulated and executed for the destruction of Palestinian society, private and public life, and their material assets.

In this situation of continuing oppression, dispossession, detention, killing and destruction of social frameworks, are Palestinians not permitted to resist all or any of this? If Israel is a colonizing power over and above its status as Military Occupier, precisely because of its settlement activity and control of the resources of the territory in Occupied Palestine then it would seem that the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960 applies to Palestinians today. I quote two relevant articles.

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, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead...."

Judge Goldstone 8217 s Bogus Test of War Time Culpability CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

If you bother to read UN res 242 you will see that the word ALL is not present when dealing with the occupied territories. And further to this you will see that the term after negotiations on mutual borders is. The ISLAMONAZI's grasped the French version because of French syntax and grammar that was in their favour, while the official version was written in English.
Anyone that attempts to use UN res 242 is advised to look at the authors notes on what each clause means, and to study those notes before trying to post half truths and outright lies.

It doesn't need to, that's already covered;

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Do you mean like Jordan and Egypt did in 1948/1949 when they acquired gaza and the west bank by war ?

Israel have offered to hand the west bank back since 1967 on the understanding that there would be peace talks and agreement on mutual borders. Since the peace agreement with Jordan the Israelis have offered the P.A. the chance to sit down and talk mutual borders and peace but they have refused. Now that the P.A. has signed the UN charter you would think that the UN would be putting pressure on them to fulfil their obligations and agree to talks. It is not in their best interests to constantly resort to violent means to bring about an end to the problem, and they will never win any concessions by doing so. All that will happen is the noose will tighten and even more Palestinians will be homeless or killed in the fighting

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Western Powers were only concerned that the Arab Palestinian People, who elected a government of the HAMAS political party, would further complicate regional peace. US domestic law forbids financing a government that threatens to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel). And the UN had to consider upholding the tenants of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 (against Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them) the measures of General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 (against attacks by means of bombs, explosives or other incendiary or lethal devices have become increasingly widespread by HAMAS and other Palestinian groups that were known to carry-out attacks by such means), and the concepts of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

It is not in the province of the Western World to be concerned as to whether or not there the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is in step with the Arab Palestinian people.

In fact foreign powers have never allowed the Palestinians to select their own leadership through illegal external interference. Look what happened to the 2006 elections.

(COMMENT)

The irresponsible actions of the Arab Palestinian people in even considering HAMAS as a legitimate leadership was bound to have consequences. The fact that the Arab Palestinians complains that the many external powers frowned upon HAMAS only demonstrates their immaturity in electing a leadership that would NOT observance the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and faithfully observe the obligations assumed by more mature constituents. The Palestinians are unable to refrain, in their international relations, from the use of hostile military, political, economic, or any other form of coercion, aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State; including Israel.

The fact that the Arab Palestinian has not elected to pursue the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States only further exemplifies the inability of the Arab Palestinian as a whole to serve the cause of regional peace.

If there is a problem with the elected Palestinian Government, it is the Arab Palestinian themselves that is to blame. No external government moved to remove or suppress the 2006 government; excepts for cause --- wherein the HAMAS Government acted as the aggressor and provoked a security response.

• No people can expect to engage in tunneling activity across the borders and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to fire rockets and mortars and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in kidnapping and murder and not expect a response.
• No people can expect to engage in armed attacks and bombings and not expect a response.

The Arab Palestinian does not have some special dispensation to engage in these hostile act without a defensive response.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are getting ahead of the game. We haven't dealt with the Palestinian's territorial integrity and illegal external interference.

Have they complied with CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and agreed mutual borders to define their territorial integrity. As history does not show any acceptance by the Palestinians of any borders, no signatures appended to any treaties, no meetings with the representatives of the neighbouring nations. While they allow the external interference by Iran and Syria supplying weapons to fight a proxy war with Israel they only have themselves to blame and they should be demanding that elections are held immediately to elect new leaders.

 

[aris2chat]

"Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures." Khaled Meshal Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, 2013

Indeed, that is Palestine inside its international borders.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Why would there be confusion on this? It is perfectly clear.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE borders and not state of Palestine borders. They have yet to be agreed.

Tell it to the Palestinians who cant even decide just what is Palestine and what isn't

It is so clear that you cant understand it at all. Not when you look at the way the arab muslims are trying to force the world to grant them something they already have.

as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states. In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.

 

[fanger]

as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states. In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

as with the french mandate, the area was to be divided into states. In the case of the french the territory was divided into 5 states that later became modern syria and Lebanon.
The british mandate was to create a jewish homeland.

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Why do you ISLAMONAZI SCUM always remove the last part that sets in stone the rights of Jews

or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]

Do you even understand what this means on the world stage, and how if Israel decided to take action in the ICC and ICJ they could bankrupt most ISLAMONAZI nations in the M.E.


Now show were the civil and religious rights of non Jews were prejudiced by the creation of Israel, other than by the arab muslims attack and invasion in May 1948 ?

 

[fanger]

Well, Zionazi-scum, Israel doesn't want to go anywhere near the ICC, they are no longer a member, as to the Frase, "rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country" Balfour had no control over other countries

 

[Phoenall]

Well, Zionazi-scum, Israel doesn't want to go anywhere near the ICC, they are no longer a member, as to the Frase, "rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country" Balfour had no control over other countries

You do know the two terms are not compatible and only an illiterate ISLAMONAZI would meld the two together. How can you be for the existence of a Jewish homeland with the Jews living in peace and be for the extermination of the Jews.

Balfour may not have had any control over other countries, but the Mandate did and this was also part of the mandate. This meant it became INTERNATIONAL LAW and the nations that forcibly evicted the Jews after 1948 can still be charged with war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the ICC. There is no statute of limitations on these crimes as the many Nazi leaders found out when hunted by the Jews.

 

[fanger]

INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws

 

[Phoenall]

INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws

Want to try it and see ?

 

[MJB12741]

INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws

HUH???

Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters. Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?

 

[theliq]

INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws

HUH???

Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters. Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?

We don't have to hear...we can blatantly see these land grabs with our own eyes.....The Balfour Declaration....was just that..a Declaration....nothing concrete,but I was inspired by a Zionist,run by Zionist Terrorists and even the British Commissioner to/in Palestine in 1948 and years prior was a ZIONIST...........the West didn't want the Jews so with their immoral behaviour dumped them in Palestine........problem sorted....so they thought...but the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff,and the world now realise the injustice done to them...........America are of course the Israeli lackies and have No Credibility at all......and tell Phoney to Stop using the term Islamnazis as it was the Zionists who collaborated with Hitler en-al and help send 100's of thousands of Jews to the Charnels(Ovens) as you full well know......the world knows......What sort of debased people are these Zionist Terrorist...not real Jews..........Zionists are un Godly in every way. I support the Palestinians and Jews but NEVER TERRORISTS.....all of them are the scum of the earth.

 

[theliq]

INTERNATIONAL LAW does not hold trumps over National laws

HUH???

Amazing what we can learn here from the Pali supporters. Did you all hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?

You don't learn a thing you Cretin