# Widening Of The Buffer Zone



## Hossfly (Jan 24, 2015)

Egypt is widening the buffer zone to 5km and demolishing 1220 homes in Rafah. This action is in reply to all the tunnels. I am anxious to hear what P F Tinmore has to say about this developement.

A total 313 houses have been demolished in the second phase of the Rafah buffer zone, out of a total of 1,220 houses marked for demolition in the area, state-run MENA news agency reported Saturday.

The second phase of the buffer zone involves the forced evacuation of 2,044 families. It covers a strip of land that is located between 1km and 500 metres from the Rafah-Gaza border. The first 500 metres of the buffer zone has already been established, in what authorities dubbed “phase one” of the plan.

North Sinai Governor Abdel Fattah Harhour told Daily News Egypt that the amount of money allocated as financial compensation for the families forced to evacuate during the second phase has yet to be decided; however, he said it would be no less than the amount allocated to displaced families in the first phase.


Demolition of Rafah continues in 2nd phase of Gaza buffer zone - Daily News Egypt


----------



## toastman (Jan 24, 2015)

No pro Palestinian will complain about this since it's Egypt demolishing homes. Which of course proves that they don't care about Palestinians, but about hating on Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 24, 2015)

toastman said:


> No pro Palestinian will complain about this since it's Egypt demolishing homes. Which of course proves that they don't care about Palestinians, but about hating on Israel.


Actually they are demolishing homes on the Egyptian side.

But what can you expect when a US stooge takes power in a coup?


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No pro Palestinian will complain about this since it's Egypt demolishing homes. Which of course proves that they don't care about Palestinians, but about hating on Israel.
> ...


Atta boy, Tinmore. You win a seegar.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 24, 2015)

"..._Buffers?_

_Yeah, Senator... the Egyptians had a lot of buffers_..."







Pretty soon, Gaza will be all 'buffers' and no 'living space'.

It's all part of a Worldwide Jooooish Kornspiracy, I tellz ya !

< snicker >


----------



## Daniyel (Jan 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No pro Palestinian will complain about this since it's Egypt demolishing homes. Which of course proves that they don't care about Palestinians, but about hating on Israel.
> ...


So you are a Muslim Brotherhood fan too, that's interesting to see the way you favor radicalism over sanity, it was the Muslim Brotherhood to start all the chaos in Egypt when they attempted to wash Egypt with radical Islam, but in few months you'd say Al-Sisi is a Mossad agent and this is all Israeli plot, what a clown.


----------



## toastman (Jan 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No pro Palestinian will complain about this since it's Egypt demolishing homes. Which of course proves that they don't care about Palestinians, but about hating on Israel.
> ...



These demolitions are a direct result of Hamas tunnels. Of course you probably have some conspiracy as to why this is taking place...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 24, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Egypt is demolishing hundreds of Egyptian's homes and for what? The Palestinians are no threat to Egypt.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The Palestinians are a threat to everyone - including themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 24, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Pffft.

The Palestinians are not a threat to any of its neighbors.


----------



## toastman (Jan 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What a load of crap. They absolutely are a threat to Israel, which is why they are being quarantined in Gaza. Savage animals must be caged.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Maybe you don't think they're a threat but Egypt does because of all the tunneling into Egypt and the matter of Hamas killing Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai. Stop with the excuses.


----------



## Grendelyn (Jan 25, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



*If Canada or Mexico began tunneling into America, do you believe our government incapable of knowing that they were doing so?  ~ Susan
PS  Stop with the excuses . . . no one in the Middle East, including Egypt, likes Israel for anyone with even the slightest modicum of intelligence knows that it is a country controlled by Near Eastern European atheists feigning biblical Judaism for their own ill-gotten gain.
PPS I am of firm belief that it is totally impossible for two Zionists to pass each other on any given street on our screwy planet without winking at each other.
*


----------



## Daniyel (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Obviously the Egyptians think otherwise.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Is that why the Palestinians are killing Egyptians in terrorist attacks. This is as a direct result of those attacks and the Egyptians will be hitting hamas hard.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

Grendelyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Define in your own words what you mean by the term Zionist please, or are you caught out by this question and that is why you refuse to answer it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Israel isn't a neighbor. It is a colonial occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Daniyel said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Al Sisi is not "the Egyptians." He is a US sponsored dictator.


----------



## toastman (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Israel is a sovereign state with international borders. No matter how much you try and deny that, it won't change Tinmore.
Palestine is a mythical creation with no borders that exists inside Israel.
But like I said, you have absolutely no credibility on the subject of Israel or the conflict.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


*Palestine is a mythical creation with no borders that exists inside Israel.*​
Can you show any proof of that?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 That would be the illegal arab muslim occupation as the Jews were invited to settle and under International law that land was theirs. No mention of an arab muslim national home in any of the treaties is there ?


----------



## Daniyel (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Actually the US-OA supported the Muslim Brotherhood which is why Egypt so pissed..


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 Can you produce the evidence of that from a reputable unbiased non partisan source ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




 Can you show proof it doesn't and not a LoN treaty that shows the borders of the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Daniyel said:
> ...


Here is a report on the dictatorship.

Egypt s Al-Sisi Establishes Tyranny Mubarak Only Dreamed Of Washington Should Stop Playing The Fool By Praising Cairo s Commitment To Democracy - Forbes

Do you actually believe that anything happens in Egypt without the US having its hand in the pie?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The Mandate for Palestine was an assigned administration. It had no borders.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 25, 2015)

Positive proof that even Egypt is tired of the BS...................they have been destroying thousands of tunnels used to funnel weapons and supplies to the RADICAL elements in GAZA..........................They have OUTLAWED the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD in their country and seized their bank accounts...................

FACE it RADICAL APOLOGIST TIN MAN.............YOUR SIDE IS RUNNING OUT OF FRIENDS....................

KARMA'S a bitch.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Positive proof that even Egypt is tired of the BS...................they have been destroying thousands of tunnels used to funnel weapons and supplies to the RADICAL elements in GAZA..........................They have OUTLAWED the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD in their country and seized their bank accounts...................
> 
> FACE it RADICAL APOLOGIST TIN MAN.............YOUR SIDE IS RUNNING OUT OF FRIENDS....................
> 
> KARMA'S a bitch.


The US and the dictators it supports in the ME have never been friends.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 25, 2015)

Interesting how Al-Sisi KNOWS that having anything to do with the supposed Palestinian DOGS is absolutely nothing but trouble, and he refuses to have them use Egypt in their terror campaign!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Positive proof that even Egypt is tired of the BS...................they have been destroying thousands of tunnels used to funnel weapons and supplies to the RADICAL elements in GAZA..........................They have OUTLAWED the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD in their country and seized their bank accounts...................
> ...


Spell it out....................anyone with common sense knows that the Middle East is quick sand.............

Any involvement over there has caused nothing but misery for all.............but to allow the RADICAL ELEMENTS of ISLAM a FREE HAND to do as they please as they reek Havoc on the world is not the answer....................

The Muslim brotherhood has been behind the organization of virtually every terror group ever formed...........and countries LIKE EGYPT are TIRED OF THEIR BS..............  

That is why they are destroying the tunnels..............THOUSANDS OF THEM...............and now are making it more difficult to build more.................They are ISOLATING your LAP DOGS of HAMAS and HEZ.................

tsk tsk.


----------



## DriftingSand (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Ethnic cleansing is totally permissible if you're cleaning out Palestinians.  It's NOT permissible if you're an American trying to remove illegal Mexicans - or if your a Greek trying to remove Turks - or if you're a European trying to remove Gypsies - or if you're a German trying to remove "bankers" - or if you're a Russian trying to remove Bolshevik Khazars - or if you're a Croat trying to remove non-Croats - and the list goes on.  

I have no dog in the ongoing, endless battles of the Mideast but I do get tired of ONLY hearing about the problems that Israelis have with the Palestinians when America has PLENTY of border and racial issues of her own.  When we get our own backyard cleaned up then perhaps we can help the rest of the world with their self-imposed problems.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Interesting how Al-Sisi KNOWS that having anything to do with the supposed Palestinian DOGS is absolutely nothing but trouble, and he refuses to have them use Egypt in their terror campaign!


The Palestinians are only a problem for Israel not Egypt.

Egypt was brought into the Israel/US/Egypt circle in 1979.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how Al-Sisi KNOWS that having anything to do with the supposed Palestinian DOGS is absolutely nothing but trouble, and he refuses to have them use Egypt in their terror campaign!
> ...


Only after losing 2 WARS against Israel...................

and Sadat was Murdered for doing so.............daring to MAKE PEACE as he was killed by the Arab League.....................

He actually died to end the bloodshed...............He finally saw endless War with ISRAEL as a useless option...........grieved by the loss of his family members in the conflict..................He CHOSE PEACE and was killed for it......................

All the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD wants IS DEATH AND DESTRUCTION................Egypt is shunning them to preserve the Peace..............Destroying the tunnels to CUT OFF their SUPPLY LINES..............and building a BUFFER ZONE to stop more from being built..................

BRAVO ZULU EGYPT.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how Al-Sisi KNOWS that having anything to do with the supposed Palestinian DOGS is absolutely nothing but trouble, and he refuses to have them use Egypt in their terror campaign!
> ...



And where smart muslim's, knowing the SCUM of their religion was formenting NOTHING but trouble, and these same pond scum are involved with terrorism all over the world!...Go ahead and deny it, you fucking retard! People that actually THINK, KNOW!!!!


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 So were in that is the proof asked for, cant see it saying he is a US sponsored dictator...........


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 The LoN treaties defined the borders of the Mandate for Palestine, the assigned mandate was the British Mandate two distinct and separate bodies. Your own links verify that the Mandate for Palestine, hereinafter known as Palestine, had international borders based on the other mandates and a treaty with Egypt.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Egypt and the Ottoman Empire agreed to international borders in 1906. That border, being Egypt's international border, was honored in subsequent treaties.

The international border between Palestine and Jordan was approved by the LoN in 1922.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





As the border of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, look at the wording of the treaty and you will see this for a fact. The treaty set in stone the International borders of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, hereinafter known as Palestine. It did not mention any nation or state of Palestine at any time in any treaty right up to its demise in 1945.


----------



## toastman (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Tinmore, you're the one who always lies about Palestine having borders. I have proved to you countless that is false, and yet you keep asking me to prove it. As usual you're playing games and deflecting.


----------



## toastman (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Please show me what treaties prove that Palestine has international boundaries.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Emad Mekay, a California-based reporter on the Middle East who has previously worked for the _New York Times _and _Bloomberg News_, told _Common Dreams_ that the statement is more evidence that the U.S. is *"trying to revive the Mubarak regime in the form of a new US-trained, funded and backed military general."*

US Welcomes Coup Leader As Egypt s New President Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community​


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...Israel isn't a neighbor. It is a colonial occupation.


No, it's a new Nation-State in the region, which, after years of good-faith negotiations with the neighboring Palestinians, and getting slapped in the face, lied-to, betrayed and its citizens killed for its troubles, has given up on such impossible hopes, and has now committed itself to a Reconquista of all the lands between the River and the Sea, and squeezing the remaining hostiles beyond their borders, as the only remaining answer to its survival needs. Past understandings, injuries, etc., have become irrelevant.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...Israel isn't a neighbor. It is a colonial occupation.
> ...


Yep, that's what they say.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 NOPE still cant see your words in that link either, no link to the coup in evidence at all.

 Why do you LIE when you know you will be found out so easily


----------



## Daniyel (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You are still ignoring me and that is quite a shame, I'll try again.
Do you support the Muslim Brotherhood as alternative for Al-Sisi, which is by the way one of the most liberal Muslims in the entire M.E.?
These are the alternatives, and you for some reason stand for the radical Islamic regimes - again - over peaceful tolerant people, weird..or not.
I Don't really know what you have in mind except "KONSFIRASIS" (Kondor's) 
So instead of deflecting try answering straight, Al-Sisi or Muslim Brotherhood?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 25, 2015)

Daniyel said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


An interesting challenge...

So, what do you say, Tinny?

Given a choice only between...

1. the Muslim Brotherhood

...and...

2. al SIssi and his government

Which would you choose?

1 or 2?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


It looks like a Tweedledee/Tweedledum choice.

Like we always get here in the US.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniyel said:
> ...


Where has your mind gone to, Tinmore? Stop with the word games.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


----------



## Daniyel (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


-Apartheid EXISTS on Facebook.

But for your information everyone addressed the region as Palestine, doesn't mean it belongs to who call themselves 'Palestinians'


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The postal zones went to ZIP Codes in 1963 so that ad is over 50 years old and Lydda is now called Lod and is in Israel proper and that's where the Ben Gurion Airport is located.


----------



## toastman (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes, Palestine the geographical regions in which Arabs had no sovereignty. Your point ?

Now about the Palestine has international borders lie ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 25, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I have already posted that a hundred times and you keep bouncing back with Israeli propaganda.

*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​
How can the Palestinians have an inalienable right to territorial integrity if they do not have territory?

I know, deep thinking is not your forte.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a bit of the argument that All pro-Palestinians have trouble with in the beginning.

*(COMMENT)*

First:  The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945).  It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Secondly:  The same body that wrote and adopted the UN Charter which stipulated the right of self-determination in 1945, also adopted the Resolution 181(II) (1947) which partitioned the trusteeship of the territory, formerly under mandate, which identified the apportionment to which the UN believed was a fair and equitable plot for the establishment of an Arab State.  This was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (an entity established by the Arab League to represent the Palestinian People).  The Arab Palestinian was encouraged to exercise their right of self-determination and refused to do so.  In contrast, the Jewish Agency did accept the opportunity to establish the Jewish State by the UN General Assembly.  Subsequent to the 1948 rejection, several conflicts were fought over the determination.

Third:  By 1978, the Arab Palestinian had taken two major self-determination actions,

The 1948 establishment of the All Palestine Government in Gaza.
The 1950 assimilation of the West Bank into the Hashemite Kingdom.​
None of these actions actually met the intended results of Article 55; which included:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
Fourth:  In 1988, the Arab Palestinians through the auspices of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been recognized as the "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," declared independence.  This was generally recognized as "self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967."  And that determination still holds through this day.  Thus, the "territorial integrity" issue that exists today, is that which was commonly recognized as the "territory occupied since 1967."  The Arab Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination and national independence --- there is no dispute to be at issue on this point.  They have exercised their "inalienable right" (more than once).

Under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, if there is a dispute between member nations over territory then the following principles applies:

_Considering_ it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,

Every State has 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.​
Currently, the Arab Palestinian claim the right to Jihad and Armed Struggle as the principle means to the dispute resolution process.  This is the foundation for the conflict, that the Arab Palestinian wants to take possession of territory they were denied through their aggression in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Palestine existed much the same as Sahara or the Steppes do, they are places that exist but are not nations. Still waiting for the treaty that created the nation of Palestine before 1988, with the Palestinian leaders signature at the bottom


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 Because they themselves refuse to set in motion the needed steps towards gaining that territory. Until they do this they will be a landless people with no chance of freedom from the shackles they have forged themselves. Lets see if hamas will declare gaza independent and set the ball rolling.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). *It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory* that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, *territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.



Yes it did.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Every State has 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.



What international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 EVIDENCE from a non partisan source ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






 Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Germany, Lebanon and I believe Iraq.   All sovereign nations with International borders agreed by treaty that the Palestinians have entered with the intention of committing acts of terrorism.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is a twisted question.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians did not violate any international boundaries; because they were not a party to the conflict in 1948.  The members of the Arab League committed the act of aggression after Israel Declared Independence under the guidance of the UN and pursuant to the Adopted Resolution of 1947.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is something new!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



As usual, nothing you posted has any direct connection to my post. 

I know, posting correct information is not your forte. 

Now, about your Palestine international borders lie...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is something new!
> 
> ...


The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


The UN did this to be gracious and politically correct, Tinmore. Learn to read between the lines.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Where and in what context?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Yes they did and by it they meant the Mandate for Palestine, not to be confused with the British Mandate which are two separate identities.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Where and in what context?
> 
> ...


Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...





 Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship.  In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 27, 2015)

There will never be a sovereign Palestinian state so why worry about borders?  Only the Palestinian leadership holds on to the idea of Palestinian state, without which they would not have the high paying cushy jobs they have now.  The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under complete control of Israel, their land borders, air space and territorial sea included.  They are analogous to the South African Bantustans and serve the same purpose for Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct.  To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination.  And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinian people exercised their inalienable right to self-determination on the matter of annexation.  It was they who accepted it annexation through parliamentary action.

*History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
*
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously *approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan* in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.  *SOURCE:* *Unification of the Two Banks
*​*Communication concerning the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
*
The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that he had received, for purposes of information, from the Headquarters Secretariat of the United Nations, the full text of the resolution of the *Jordan Parliament as approved by the King providing for the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine*. The text which was defective in places, was the English translation of an Arab original.

The Commission, since it was in direct relation with the States of the Near East after noting Jordan’s decision, might think it opportune to write to the Jordan Government requesting official communication of the text in question.

The CHAIRMAN thought it would have been natural for the Jordan authorities to have sent the text in question to the Commission without having to be asked for it. In his view the text sent to the Secretary-General was intended for the Members of the United Nations. In those circumstances the Principal Secretary should he instructed to as for the text of the Jordan Parliament’s resolution, in order to emphasize the direct relations existing between the Commission and the Governments interested in the Palestine question.  *SOURCE:* *SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 April 1950, at 11 a.m.*​*​III. THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION --- UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE  ----  THE PALESTINE CRISIS*

Regardless of the reservations contained in the Armistice Agreements on the temporary character of the Armistice lines, it is certain that with the simple passage of time these lines are increasingly acquiring the validity and permanence of formal frontiers. This natural process is inevitable and has been considerably assisted by the two following events whose profound significance need not be underlined; *the annexation of the greater part of Arab Palestine by Jordan*, and the guarantee given to the Armistice lines by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France.  *SOURCE:* *A/AC.25/W/51  9 October 1950*​
The Arab Palestinian action on self-determination was never rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) OR the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There will never be a sovereign Palestinian state so why worry about borders?  Only the Palestinian leadership holds on to the idea of Palestinian state, without which they would not have the high paying cushy jobs they have now.  The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under complete control of Israel, their land borders, air space and territorial sea included.  They are analogous to the South African Bantustans and serve the same purpose for Israel.






 Not according to the leaders of the Palestinians who stated that gaza is not occupied and has not been since August 2005, so care to alter your post to reflect this fact.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 27, 2015)

Who controls Gaza land borders, air space and territorial sea?  That would determine the "facts".


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There will never be a sovereign Palestinian state so why worry about borders?  Only the Palestinian leadership holds on to the idea of Palestinian state, without which they would not have the high paying cushy jobs they have now.  The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under complete control of Israel, their land borders, air space and territorial sea included.  They are analogous to the South African Bantustans and serve the same purpose for Israel.


Gaza is not under complete Israeli control. Neither is the entire West Bank.


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Who controls Gaza land borders, air space and territorial sea?  That would determine the "facts".





 Hamas does But Israel and Egypt control their side of the borders and don't allow free passage in or out under the terms of International law. There is a blockade in place that the ICC have stated to be valid and legal as well.
 Did you forget about Egypt and its control of the border ?


----------



## fanger (Jan 27, 2015)

_Legality of the naval blockade_: The report does not reach a decision on this question, on

which the different commissions of inquiry have differences of opinion, because

according to the report, the legality of the naval blockade is relevant to only one of the

alleged crimes (the crime of intentionally directing an attack against civilian objects, that

is, the takeover of the _Mavi Marmara_) and does not impact on the assessment of the other

war crimes examined.

*Substantive Crimes*

_Claims that were accepted_: The report states that there is a reasonable basis to believe

that war crimes were committed by IDF soldiers, specifically, the willful killing and

injuring of protected civilians. The claim accepted by the Turkel Commission, that the

violent IHH activists should be seen as civilians taking direct part in hostilities, and

therefore, as a legitimate military target for attack, was rejected. According to the report,

all passengers on the ship, including these activists, are considered protected civilians and

thus may not be attacked. The report notes that the use of force against violent civilians

endangering the soldiers’ lives can be perhaps justified by self-defense. However, it

determined that this must be examined in the investigation and trial stages and not at the

stage of preliminary examination. The report also states that according to the information

available, at least in some instances, IDF soldiers appear to have used excessive force that

went beyond what was required for self-defense. In addition, the report states that there is

a reasonable basis to believe that IDF soldiers perpetrated war crimes against the

detainees on the _Mavi Marmara_, by committing “outrages upon personal dignity.” It also

notes that if* Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was unlawful *
http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/Referral-from-Comoros.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct.  To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination.  And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct.  To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination.  And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.
> 
> ...


From your link:

(a) The fact that the emotional trauma suffered by the Arab peoples as a result of the *creation of the State of Israel in Palestine* and the displacement of almost a million Arabs is still far being healed...​
There is that pesky "in Palestine" thing again.

Why should the Palestinians accept a foreign state being created in Palestine?

Who else in the world would accept such a thing.

Give me some names.

Rocco, according to you:

Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1949 even though there was no war between Jordan and Palestine.

Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.

Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.

Now it is occupied Palestinian territory. 

The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it.


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



"The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it"

I completely agree Tinmore. And that is the issue with you when it comes to debating the history of the I-P conflict. You immense amounts of Palestinians propaganda and you expect us to believe it.


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

Rocco, I have a quick question for you. You might have explained it already, so I might have missed it.

How is it that the West Bank was 'sovereign Jordanian territory'  if they occupied it?


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Sometimes, I think you intentionally misrepresent the facts.



P F Tinmore said:


> From your link:
> 
> (a) The fact that the emotional trauma suffered by the Arab peoples as a result of the *creation of the State of Israel in Palestine* and the displacement of almost a million Arabs is still far being healed...​
> There is that pesky "in Palestine" thing again.


*(COMMENT)*

In this context, the intention was to communicate a "Palestine" ----- as in:  "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 

Put in the proper context, it conveys something entirely different.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why should the Palestinians accept a foreign state being created in Palestine?


*(COMMENT)*

It wasn't "their Palestine."



P F Tinmore said:


> Who else in the world would accept such a thing.
> 
> Give me some names.


*(COMMENT)
*
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan were all created out of Mandates.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, according to you:
> 
> Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1949 even though there was no war between Jordan and Palestine.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)
*
Yes --- First you have to understand what it means to say:  "Occupied" --- A state of war is not an element to "occupation."  The relationship between Jordan and the "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine" formerly applied, and under UN Trusteeship.  If the Jordanian "effective control" is not considered "hostile," then there is no legal obstacle to "annexation."  


Article 42, 1907 Hague Convention: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Yes, Jordan Annexed the West Bank in 1950; simply a matter of record which is not disputed by either the UN or the Hashemite Kingdom.  It was a self-determination effort on the part of the Palestinian People in a parliamentary process.

NO!  I did not use the word "won."  In 1967, the general description was Israeli Occupation through the establishment of "effective control.".



P F Tinmore said:


> Now it is occupied Palestinian territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes:  After 1988 when the PLO declared independence; and if ---- the PLO _(the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People)_ consider the "effective control" by Israeli Forces as "hostile."



P F Tinmore said:


> The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I think you are convincing more than your share.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 27, 2015)

toastman,  et al,

This has to do with the definition of what it means to be "Occupied."



toastman said:


> Rocco, I have a quick question for you. You might have explained it already, so I might have missed it.
> 
> How is it that the West Bank was 'sovereign Jordanian territory'  if they occupied it?


*(ANSWER)*

When the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank joined the Jordanian Parliamentary Process, the "effective control" was no longer held by a "Hostile" Army. 

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
There is no case of coercion, without the "hostile" component --- there is no true "occupation."

v/r
R


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  et al,
> 
> This has to do with the definition of what it means to be "Occupied."
> 
> ...



Ah, got it. Thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> In this context, the intention was to communicate a "Palestine" ----- as in: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."



OK, but the foreigners did not declare themselves to be a state in Palestine until after the mandate left.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

When the Mandate terminated, the Mandate converted to a Trusteeship under Chapter XII of the Charter (Article 77 Para 1a).  When the Mandatory left, the Successor Government assumed the responsibility.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish Agency _(not foreigners)_, in coordination with the Successor Government (UNPC), exercised their right to self-determination in accordance with the Step Preparatory to Independence, as established by UN GA Resolution 181(II).   The territory, formerly under Mandate for Palestine, did not change names or status.

Likewise, the Arab Higher Committee, exercised their right to self-determination _(in the negative sense)_ by rejection participation in the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> It wasn't "their Palestine."



Are you saying that Palestine is not the Palestinian's?

You are going weird on us.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You are taking this out of context and in the improper timeline.

The State of Palestine did not come under Palestinian Sovereignty until 1988.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The Jewish Agency _(not foreigners)_,..



The foreign Jewish Agency was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

The Jewish Agency was created to work with the mandate and served at its pleasure. It had no legitimate function outside of the mandate that left Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No
> 
> ...


The Palestinians right to sovereignty predate the 1988 declaration that did nothing for their sovereignty.


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where did you read that ?


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Notice how Rocco provides valid links, while you provide nothing but your opinion along with propaganda ?
If what you said was true, then why did they declare independence in 1988?? For fun?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


History.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


_Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

_Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

*1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine,* including:

(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;

*(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;*

2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
1974 predates 1988 and the Palestinian's right to sovereignty predate that resolution.

Why the PLO declared independence again in 1988 is a good question.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine, *including:

 (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;

 (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974​
Damn, there is that pesky *in Palestine* thing again.

How can the Palestinians have inalienable rights *in Palestine* unless there is a Palestine?


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What you posted from 1974 is completely irrelevant. It does not say anything about Palestinians declaring independence. They did so in 1988 and that's when they got sovereignty. You cannot refute that,


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I think you made it up.


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine, *including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> ...



When will you understand that this link you keep posting means nothing whatsoever??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


In 1929, the Palestine Zionist Executive was renamed, restructured and officially inaugurated as The Jewish Agency for Palestine by the 16th Zionist Congress, held in Zurich, Switzerland.

...the Jewish Agency for Palestine was recognized by the British in 1930, in lieu of the Zionist Organization, as the appropriate Jewish agency under the terms of the Mandate.

Jewish Agency for Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​


----------



## toastman (Jan 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


And ? No mention of foreign.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Zurich Switzerland is not foreign to Palestine?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2015)

fanger said:


> _Legality of the naval blockade_: The report does not reach a decision on this question, on
> 
> which the different commissions of inquiry have differences of opinion, because
> 
> ...







 And who was named in the arrest warrants issued on charges of war crimes ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...






 India when it had two foreign states created on its land, Yugoslavia when it had a foreign state created on its land there you go 3 instances of this happening and in each case it was the muslims. Now why is it nothing is said about muslim states being created on non muslim land around the world, but let an indigenous people exercise their rights and declare independence on land they own and the muslims go ballistic.

 You forget that the only Palestinians for nearly 2000 years were the Jews, the arab muslims called themselves Syrians. So the Jews have a perfect right to lay claim to the land and then invite those they want to come and settle there.


 So what is your timeline of events in the west bank, and remember to include the reason why Jordan threw the Palestinians to the dogs ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> Rocco, I have a quick question for you. You might have explained it already, so I might have missed it.
> 
> How is it that the West Bank was 'sovereign Jordanian territory'  if they occupied it?





 Because the arab muslims there exercised their rights and accepted Jordanian rule in return for citizenship. Then they exercised their rights again and decided they wanted to rule Jordan completely. This led to the Jordan forces murdering 50,000 Palestinians kept in cages and the removal of citizenship to those in the west bank. Throwing them to the dogs once again


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 Not in this case as it was just a place to hold a conference, much as the Palestinians have held conferences in Cairo and Bagdad. They are "foreign" being outside of Palestine. The Jewish agency was formulated by the Zionist Congress that could have met anywhere in the world, they chose Zurich because it was unbiased.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, this is a misinterpretation of the facts.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The "Jewish Agency" (JA) was a prerequisite established under Article 4, The Mandate For Palestine; established in 1929.  The JA had to be accredited by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) under the Article 4, "as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The JA still exists today serving the greater Jewish Community in various aspects in the interest of national development.

We were instrumental in founding and building the State of Israel and continue to serve as the main link between the Jewish state and Jewish communities everywhere. This global partnership has enabled us to address the Jewish People’s greatest challenges in every generation.​Today, we connect the global Jewish family, bringing Jews to Israel, and Israel to Jews, by providing meaningful Israel engagement and facilitating Aliyah. We build a better society in Israel - and beyond - energizing young Israelis and their worldwide peers to rediscover a collective sense of Jewish purpose.

The Jewish Agency continues to be the Jewish world’s first responder, prepared to address emergencies in Israel, and to rescue Jews from countries where they are at risk.  *SOURCE:  The Jewish Agency*​One of the reasons that the Arab Palestinian Community has failed to progress is that it declined _(another negative exercise in the right of self-determination)_ to establish a counterpart agency for the Arab Community. 

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. *The Arab leaders declined that this offer* on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, *t*_*hey had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis*_.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.  *SOURCE:  *_*The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23, A/AC.14/8*
*2 October 1947*_​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I agree, the Arab "right to self determination" predates 1988.  But in saying that, the Palestinian must work successfully to exercise that right.  Having a "right" and "exercising that right" are two entirely different matters.  AND, there are limits; in that the "rights" are not politically or territorially infinite.  In this case the UN _Reaffirms_ the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967  (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012).  Without regards to what the Arab Palestinian Community might have envisioned as their "rights" --- they failed to make any meaning attempt to achieve their original aspirations as originally stated by their representative --- "mindful of the racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations."  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, the absence of understanding.



P F Tinmore said:


> 1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people *in Palestine, *including:
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The phrase "in Palestine" is not a bounded territorial promise.  It doesn't imply that the Palestinians have some "right" to all of the territory formerly under Mandate.



P F Tinmore said:


> _Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The reasons are what they are.  The history cannot be changed.  The timeline moves always forward. 

You criticize the PLO for declaring independence, yet you cry-out consistently for "independence and sovereignty."   It doesn't happen by magic.  In order for a people, any people (even the Palestinians), to achieve their national aspirations, they must put forth some positive and productive effort in the establish of their "independence and sovereignty."  This, over and over again, has been the missing component in the Arab Palestinian attaining their goal --- a positive effort.

Even today, the government of the Palestinian People is nothing more than a parasitic entity, unable to even carryout the basic functions of a democracy.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jan 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, the absence of understanding.
> 
> ...






 If you read the posts that cry for the Palestinians rights what they are really demanding is that the world removes Israel and the Jews from the M.E. so the arab muslims have a ready made nation to walk into. They don't want the Palestinians to have to work and pay for their own nation when there is a perfectly good one already built and prospering right next door and that it is their right under sharia law to take it any time they want.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

Phoenall,  _et al,_

Don't pay any attention to this.  It is merely a one-sided referral to the Prosecutor for consideration on behalf of the The Comoros.  



Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > _Legality of the naval blockade_: The report does not reach a decision on this question, on which the different commissions of inquiry have differences of opinion, because according to the report, the legality of the naval blockade is relevant to only one of the alleged crimes (the crime of intentionally directing an attack against civilian objects, that is, the takeover of the _Mavi Marmara_) and does not impact on the assessment of the other war crimes examined.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There was no warrant because the event did not rise to the level of a "War Crime" or a "Crime Against Humanity."  It is not like the IDF killed-off an Olympic Team, or hi-jacked a commercial airliner killing passengers and throwing them on the tarmac.  It is not like the IDF _(imitating Palestinian terrorists)_ stopped and boarded a cruise-liner and killed off crippled passengers and rolled their wheelchair into the sea.  It is not like the IDF fired 4000 rockets into the jurisdiction of The Comoros.  

What we have here is a bold and blatant case of pro-Palestinians attempting to provide material support to a number of designated terrorist group by purposely placing themselves in harms way and running a naval blockade with contraband.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Thats not what I meant. In your link it says the agency was approved under the terms of the mandate. Being foreign or not is irrelevant.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


It was relevant. The Jewish Agency was a foreign organization that was created by the foreign World Zionist Organization to represent the Zionists to the mandate. It had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine.

This is the foreign organization that created Israel inside Palestine without the approval of the people.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Can you without doubt prove the bold, or are you making up lies again for your agenda?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I already posted a link. Is there a specific part that you do not understand?


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This shows a distinct misunderstanding of the Jewish Agency and it relationship to the government.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish Agency _[non-governmental organization (NGO) --- Once Called the Palestine Zionist Executive (PZE)]_ was created in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Mandate.  After the adoption of the Partition Plan and the appointment of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) to be the successor Government on the termination of the Mandate, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, was the designated representatives to assist the commission.  This was a critical function in working together with ALL jews (zionist and non-zionist) in building the Jewish National Home under the provisions of the Mandate.  It is an organization that was organic to that purpose and is as indigenous to that purpose as any Arab Palestinian organization of a comparable nature; including the establishment of the Arab Higher Committee by the Arab League _(also a foreign parent organization)_.

Prior to the Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State, Israel, the Jewish Agency --- was instrumental in establishing the two key Jewish Councils which came together and blended to form the Provision Government of Israel _(the People's Council and the National Council)_.   After the termination of the Mandate, and upon the Declaration of Independence, the Jewish Agency was thereafter an NGO under the umbrella of the Provisional Government of Israel.

The Arab Palestinian had no say into the evolutionary process of the Jewish Agency, or to dictate the mission, goals or objectives of the Agency.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This shows a distinct misunderstanding of the Jewish Agency and it relationship to the government.
> 
> ...


So, how does this conflict with my post?


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Where in your link does it say that the Jewish agency "*had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine*" ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your claims are that:

The Jewish Agency is a foreign organization.
That the Jewish Agency created Israel inside Palestine without the approval of the people.
It had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine.
None of which are accurate.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, how does this conflict with my post?


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish Agency was created as an "indigenous agency" to the territory to which the Mandate applied, at the direction of the Allied Powers and to assist the Mandatory in the building of a Jewish National Home.  The Jewish Agency was made-up of Jewish Palestinians for Jewish Palestinians.

The Jewish Agency was created inside the territory under the Mandate of Palestine, helping create the the Jewish State of Israel in accordance with the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and under the right of self-determination of the Jewish People.   Approved by the People's Council and the National Council.

The Jewish Agency had the functions and responsibilities of that under the Mandate (Articles 4 and 6), and to carry out the Steps Preparatory to Independence under the supervision of the UN Palestine Commission.  After Independence, it was an NGO under Israel Government Supervision.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


From Rocco's post:

The "Jewish Agency" (JA) was a prerequisite established under Article 4, The Mandate For Palestine; established in 1929. The JA had to be accredited by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) *under the Article 4, "as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home."​
It was an advisory organization. It had no authority. It was a part of the mandate and had no function absent the mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Your claims are that:
> 
> ...


The Jewish Agency was created as an "indigenous agency" to the territory to which the Mandate applied,​
Rocco, you are a hoot.

Not one of those fuckers were indigenous to Palestine.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Ok , so you didn't answer my question. 

In other words, your statement that the* "Jewish agency had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine"
*is something you made up and have NOTHING at all to back it up with. 

It's ok, I'm used to you doing that..


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now we are just quibbling over derivative authority versus statutory authority.

In all matters relating to the Administration of Palestine, the authority was derivative; even the authority of the Mandatory (UK).



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> 
> Where in your link does it say that the Jewish agency "*had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine*" ?


From Rocco's post:

The "Jewish Agency" (JA) was a prerequisite established under Article 4, The Mandate For Palestine; established in 1929. The JA had to be accredited by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) *under the Article 4, "as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine* in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home."​
It was an advisory organization. It had no authority. It was a part of the mandate and had no function absent the mandate.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In January 1947, the Jewish Agency was unequivocally the designated representatives to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the establishment of an Independent State.  This was completely outside the scope of the Mandate.  That is because it was amid the transition.

Your argument is now convoluted.  With regard to True Authority, you are correct.  The Jewish Agency had no true authority any more than the Arab Higher Committee had any authority.  All authority was administered and delegated to the Mandatory.   That does not diminish that contributions made by the Jewish Agency in the utimate establishment of the Jewish National Home. 

In terms of authority to exercise the right of self-determination, the Jewish Agency, had all the authority required to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence for the Provisional Government to Declare Independence; much much more than that of the Arab Palestinian; this is self evident in the face of the fact that it was accomplished.  A goal towards nationalism which the Arab Palestinian were unable to attain.

You want to call it "advisory" --- so be it.  In reality --- they built a nation that endures to this day and is self-governing and economically stable and sound.  What did the Arab Palestinian accomplish?

You as a proPalestinian can criticize the Israeli all you want, but in the end, they have a nation working towards peace.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinian has a dysfunctional operations that is monetarily parasitic and Jihadist in nature working towards the continuation of conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now we are just quibbling over derivative authority versus statutory authority.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In January 1947, the Jewish Agency was unequivocally the designated representatives to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the establishment of an Independent State.  This was completely outside the scope of the Mandate.  That is because it was amid the transition.

Your argument is now convoluted.  With regard to True Authority, you are correct.  The Jewish Agency had no true authority any more than the Arab Higher Committee had any authority.  All authority was administered and delegated to the Mandatory.   That does not diminish that contributions made by the Jewish Agency in the utimate establishment of the Jewish National Home.

In terms of authority to exercise the right of self-determination, the Jewish Agency, had all the authority required to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence for the Provisional Government to Declare Independence; much much more than that of the Arab Palestinian; this is self evident in the face of the fact that it was accomplished.  A goal towards nationalism which the Arab Palestinian were unable to attain.

You want to call it "advisory" --- so be it.  In reality --- they built a nation that endures to this day and is self-governing and economically stable and sound.  What did the Arab Palestinian accomplish?

You as a proPalestinian can criticize the Israeli all you want, but in the end, they have a nation working towards peace.  In contrast, the Arab Palestinian has a dysfunctional operations that is monetarily parasitic and Jihadist in nature working towards the continuation of conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.[/QUOTE]

"Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population"

This is another bold statement. Can you provide a link for this one? I'm going to guess that you made this one up as well..


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.[/QUOTE]

A Palestinian supporter calling others lying sacks of shit


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



A Palestinian supporter calling others lying sacks of shit      [/QUOTE]
Tinmore vs. Rocco is like a pre-schooler arguing with a history professor.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Tinmore vs. Rocco is like a pre-schooler arguing with a history professor.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, he doesn't have a chance.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



"Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population"

This is another bold statement. Can you provide a link for this one? I'm going to guess that you made this one up as well..[/QUOTE]
I have already posted that many times.

You need to keep up.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I have already posted that many times.

You need to keep up.[/QUOTE]

Nice duck. 

So in conclusion, you have posted two very bold statements and have provided NO proof for them like I asked which would lead me to believe that they are false, like most of the crap you post here.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Tinmore vs. Rocco is like a pre-schooler arguing with a history professor.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha that is so true. 

Tinmore should be thanking Rocco for what he has taught him .


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Hahaha that is so true.

Tinmore should be thanking Rocco for what he has taught him .[/QUOTE]
Indeed, he has posted considerable evidence of illegal external interference.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Indeed, he has posted considerable evidence of illegal external interference.[/QUOTE]
Just because you say it was illegal, doesn't make it so .


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Just because you say it was illegal, doesn't make it so .[/QUOTE]
I don't say it. That is the law.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I don't say it. That is the law.[/QUOTE]
We've been through this already. Tinmore Laws don't apply to the real world


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


We've been through this already. Tinmore Laws don't apply to the real world[/QUOTE]
Well, some of us have to stand up for moral values and the rule of law.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Well, some of us have to stand up for moral values and the rule of law.[/QUOTE]
Ok, but Tinmore laws are irrelevant.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Ok, but Tinmore laws are irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Only to the criminal class.


----------



## toastman (Jan 28, 2015)

Tinmore laws = not real laws. Fake. Fairytale.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Only to the criminal class.[/QUOTE]
There's gonna be 1 of 2 scenarios, Tinmore, whether you like it or not. 1 - The Palis pack up and move to another country or 2 - The Palis run the Jews into the sea. There is *no* other recourse so pick one and end this charade.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, he has posted it many times.  _(He got them from me.)_  But I'm not sure he understands it or their significants in time.  It is also important to note that an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body.  With the possibility of Central Africa, where it is believed humanity started, all populations are a product of migration _(the movement by people from one place to another with the intention of settling temporarily or permanently in the new location)_ and immigration _(the movement of people into a country to which they are not native in order to settle and establish permanent residents)_.  At some point, whether by migration or immigration, the people in movement became assimilated and part of the indigenous population.



P F Tinmore said:


> I have already posted that many times.
> 
> You need to keep up.


*(REFERENCEs)*

A/RES/61/295 13 September 2007  61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
_Bearing in mind_ that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law,
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

A/RES/66/142  30 March 2012   66/142. Rights of indigenous peoples 
*(COMMENT)*

First, it is important to note that the concept and adopted principles of behind these rights are relatively new in comparison to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict which began in the mid 20th Century.  Both these principles and the doctrine that is foundational to them are based on 21st Century critical thinking; both principles coming more than a half Century after the 1947 Partition Plan [A/RES/181(II)] and the civil war it ignited.  

Second, no matter how you define "indigenous population" --- the rights of the indigenous people are the same as that of the assimilated immigrant or migrant.  That is to say that _"_indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different."  

Thirdly, the concept behind the protections afforded the "indigenous population" is comprehensive _sui generis_ _(of its own kind/ genus)_ regime of protection; the same protections the Principle Allied Powers had in mind in the San Remo Convention and the establish of a Jewish National Home.  And the _sui generis_ _(of its own kind/ genus)_ regime of protection were no less distinctive in their demands than those of self-determination, the preservation and flourishing of their cultures.

Finally, If I am wrong in applying the term "indigenous" to the the Jewish People in the land of Israel, then it is arguable that it is equally as wrong to apply the term to the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq (Jan 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No they are not Tinnie but I wonder how much "US and Israeli Aid" are the Gyppoes receiving ........but I am complaining about these Gyppo actions and it seems completely out of character...no doubt time will tell.....there is something here that probably we will find out later..steve


----------



## theliq (Jan 29, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


There's gonna be 1 of 2 scenarios, Tinmore, whether you like it or not. 1 - The Palis pack up and move to another country or 2 - The Palis run the Jews into the sea. There is *no* other recourse so pick one and end this charade.[/QUOTE]
Of course there is not 2 actions Hoss........now your comments are like holding a gun to the Palestinians head....it was tried before....they survived.....cut the shit.steve


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


There's gonna be 1 of 2 scenarios, Tinmore, whether you like it or not. 1 - The Palis pack up and move to another country or 2 - The Palis run the Jews into the sea. There is *no* other recourse so pick one and end this charade.[/QUOTE]

There is a third option. The Jewish Zionist fanatics pack up and go home, the Muslim extremists get kicked out and the remaining Muslim, Jewish and Christian indigenous population settle down together and build the nation that should have been built before the British and French turned up with their lines in the sand.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2015)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?


America, their "second home".


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?
> ...



You're not fit to hold a conversation.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...




Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat  the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Dear Pot...love Kettle.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...




You thrive on this sort of stuff, don't you?

It's obvious you're not too bright.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



But still a Quasar compared to you, my sweet.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



A what?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 29, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?


Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al_,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing.  _(Proverb:  Home is where the heart is!)_



P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

_Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people 
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting 
their national home in that country;_​
It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> 
> Yes, --- a thought provoking questing.  _(Proverb:  Home is where the heart is!)_
> 
> ...



The beginning? Really? In that case you better start packing, sell up and get the next plane to wherever your ancestors came from. You're living on land originally owned by the Adena people, or if they're extinct, any Algonquian native Americans.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

As we've discussed, the  unfolding process of change in direction of progress pertaining to the recognition of "indigenous rights" has been slow but steady.  It has only been in the dawn of the 21st Century that grave consideration has been given to the issue --- and it is still not totally acceptable.  Even now, it is impossible to roll back the clock and undo the decisions of the past.

Remembering that, of course, what was considered acceptable in the past may not be considered acceptable today.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

Given the fact that most leadership that made determinations in the early decades of the 20th Century _(in the immediate shadow of the Great World War)_ based on the development of international logic and predicated on philosophical persuasions driven by the lessons learned from the later part of the 19th Century _[which included the era of the First - Second & Third Italian Wars of Independence, the Great Apache Wars, the Eighth Xhosa War, the Crimean War, the Third Seminole War, the Second Opium War, the French intervention in Mexico, the Comanche Campaign, the Ten Years' War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Second Anglo-Afghan War, the First & Second Franco-Dahomean Wars, Cuban War of Independence, the Spanish–American War, the Boxer Rebellion, etc, etc etc (just to name a very few)]_ --- and the political leadership had somewhat of a different view then, on the rights of the indigenous population, the colonial policies abroad, and the administration of territory under occupation.  The international relations between both hostile and friendly states had a much different meaning then --- than they have today.  Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- _Stare Decisis_ _[meaning --- Let the decision stand]_.  We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.

At the end of WWI, the decisions were made that directly lead to the conditions which exist today.  Whether they were right or wrong by todays standards makes not difference.  The decision was to extend the special consideration to the Jewish Culture (_sui generis_ regiment) for the protection and preservation of its heritage under the philosophy and principles of the day --- _Stare Decisis_.

*(OFF TOPIC)*

Just as a point of order:  (Since you mentioned it!)

The Native American inhabitants from the territory where I live came from one of two main groups: Iroquoian speakers _(these included the Cayuga, Oneida, Erie, Onondaga, Seneca and Tuscarora)_, or (as you mentioned) the Algonquian speakers _(these included the Pequot, Fox, Shawnee, Wampanoag, __Delaware__ and Menominee)_.  But they were not the first American Indians.  Oddly enough, al-Jazeera America had an scientific article on the subject.  Before the Iroquoian and Algonquian speakers, there were the Clovis - a culture that inhabited parts of the Northeast America over ten thousand years ago _(13,000 years ago to about 12,600 years ago)_.  

"Genome sequencing in November 2013 on the arm bone of a three-year-old Siberian boy known as the "Mal'ta Boy" — the world's oldest known genome — showed that Native Americans share up to 35 percent of their DNA with people in Eurasia, the Middle East and Europe."​
One can carry this "indigenous population theme" as far back as they wish.  But while interesting, in the practical sense, the expansion and conquest of territory has been a historical process throughout human history.  Just because today, culturally and sociologically speaking we may question it, doesn't change the fact that it happened.  Hell, there may be an Arab Palestinian who was related to a Clovis Tribal member that once own my property --- taken in conquest.  That doesn't alter the fact that I own it today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RandomVariable (Jan 29, 2015)

Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:

Simultaneous attacks in Egypt s Sinai kill 27 - Israel News Ynetnews
An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.

But the wide-ranging attacks late Thursday, which struck the Northern Sinai provincial capital el-Arish, the nearby town of Sheik Zuwayid and the town of Rafah bordering Gaza, indicate a previously unseen level of coordination.

The officials said Thursday's attacks included at least one car bomb set off outside a military base and mortar rounds fired at a hotel, a police club and more than a dozen checkpoints. At least 36 people were wounded in the attack, according to medical officials, who also confirmed the death toll.​


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:
> 
> Simultaneous attacks in Egypt s Sinai kill 27 - Israel News Ynetnews
> An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.
> ...



Fascinating. Egypt has closed the border created a buffer zone to keep Gaza sealed off, the Egyptian navy has joined in the favourite pastime of the Israeli navy and shoots up Palestinian fishing boats and then is surprised that it's own citzens, not Gazans, are so hacked off with this new dictatorship that they join al-Quaeda and/or IS. I wonder if the Gazans sat on sofa's watching the fireworks across the border, "nothing to do with us!" although I suspect the Zionists and Egyptian supporters od al-Sissy will try to find an excuse to bomb Gaza a bit more.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- _Stare Decisis_ _[meaning --- Let the decision stand]_.  We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.
> 
> At the end of WWI, the decisions were made that directly lead to the conditions which exist today.  Whether they were right or wrong by todays standards makes not difference.  The decision was to extend the special consideration to the Jewish Culture (_sui generis_ regiment) for the protection and preservation of its heritage under the philosophy and principles of the day --- _Stare Decisis_.



Legalese nonsense.
You kow as well as I do "Stare Decisis" does not apply to "higher courts."  "National governments" can make declarations until they're blue in the face, then and now, but Supra-national bodies, like the U.N. are not bound to accept them and they can be overruled. San Remo, for example, could be rendered null and void by a Security Council Resolution, and even a General Assemby Resolution, although not necessarily binding, would demonstrate "supra-national" opinion on a subject, which in turn can become Customary International Law. All that is needed is the political will to act.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger, RandomVariable, et al,

The actions of the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis are relative to their goals and objectives.  The potential menu of retaliation are a measure of either conviction or resolve.



Challenger said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The situation here is more a complex question of moral relativism, political dilemma and consequence action than anything else.  It is extremely hard to judge that reasoning behind the hostile action and jihadist approach without clearly understanding the process by which the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis came to the decision to take such a deadly and provocative action.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 29, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

Well, to be honest, I wasn't using the latin term as it is commonly applied in the legal profession, but rather as it was originally used in the philosophical context.  



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- _Stare Decisis_ _[meaning --- Let the decision stand]_.  We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.
> ...





Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- _Stare Decisis_ _[meaning --- Let the decision stand]_.  We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

True, it is that higher court that uses the decision "_Stare Decisis_" in its review.  (Although I was using the term in the general sense and context of the pure meaning of letting a previous decision stand.)

A Security Council Resolution are special in the sense that  "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". (Chapter V - Article 25 - UN Charter)  This is often what is meant when a Resolution is labeled as "binding" _[(of an agreement or promise) involving an obligation that cannot be broken]_.  However, enforcement of a binding resolution is again bounded by the requirement to maximize the effort to maintain peace and security; particularly on matters which involve territorial boundaries.  

Political will to act is an entirely different matter.  While there are some cases in which *ex post facto law *_(retroactively changing the legal consequences)_ can be applied, it is unlikely that in the case of territorial disputes that the International Body will act in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are endangered.  Nor is it likely that a majority of the membership will permit the enactment of a binding resolution that could be turned upon themselves; especially in cases in which self-defense, self-determination, and sovereignty are at issue.  No country is going to grant a UN Body the power to change (as an example) its international boundaries based on historical conjecture. 

We haven't addressed an issue, in the recent discussion segment, that involves International Customary Law; at least I don't think we have. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RandomVariable (Jan 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger, RandomVariable, et al,
> 
> The actions of the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis are relative to their goals and objectives.  The potential menu of retaliation are a measure of either conviction or resolve.
> 
> ...


The reasoning for the action is that the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis is now part of ISIS.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> 
> Yes, --- a thought provoking questing.  _(Proverb:  Home is where the heart is!)_
> 
> ...


This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.


----------



## theliq (Jan 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> ...


Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve


----------



## theliq (Jan 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> 
> Yes, --- a thought provoking questing.  _(Proverb:  Home is where the heart is!)_
> 
> ...


Stop this ridiculous prose...the real reason the leaders concocted all this,was because they wanted Rid of the Jews so they thought they could Dump them in Palestine.......IT WAS NOT LOVE FOR THE JEWS....IT WAS ANTI-SEMITIC BULLSHIT....get a grip Rocco and throw away those Rose coloured glasses of yours....steve


----------



## toastman (Jan 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> ...



Completely false. Rocco has provided information with links that prove otherwise, on several occasions. This is simply another example of you not being able to handle the truth.

BTW, the state of Palestine was created the same way, so....


----------



## toastman (Jan 29, 2015)

theliq said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Actually, Tinmore has no credibility whatsoever when posting about ISrael or the history of the I/P conflict.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al_,
> ...



You seem to devote a lot of time dwelling on "irrelevant" posts, without saying anything substantive yourself.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



"Prove otherwise"? Hardly. RoccoR has his opinions and interpretations, neither of which constitute "proof" of anything.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 30, 2015)

Challenger,  theliq, et al,

The question that sparked this segment of the discussion was: PF Tinmore's Posting #152:  to the Question posed by Mindful's in Posting #141:  Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?



theliq said:


> Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve


*(COMMENT)*

I stuck to the point.  I was not trying to present a basis for an implicit or exclusive Jewish State.  The final recommendation for a Jewish State was adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 181(II), wherein the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) presented the "majority proposal" 

 (partition) formed the basis for the resolution.  This resolution set the conditions for BOTH Independent Arab and Jewish States, as well as the initial setup for the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this plan.  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III.  (See paragraph 3 of Preamble)

Having said that, proof of an implicit implication for an exclusive Arab and Jewish States was not the intent, but rather to demonstrate the intent of the San Remo Convention and the Allied Powers, as adopted by the League of Nations.



Challenger said:


> "Prove otherwise"? Hardly. RoccoR has his opinions and interpretations, neither of which constitute "proof" of anything.


*(COMMENT)*

Everyone's opinion in the discussion is based on interpretation and an evaluation based on what they see as facts.

In the beginning (the post-War period after the fall of the Ottoman Empire), there was no question as to the intent:  The establishment of a Jewish National Home where the future of the Jewish People and culture could be free and secure from further trials and tribulations --- free from further distress and suffering resulting from oppression or persecution in the non-Jewish world.  And the territory under the Mandate of Palestine, the point of origin for the Jewish People, was selected as that place.  While it wasn't necessary that an exclusive Jewish State be established, it became evident by the demonstrated irreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinian culture and the Jewish Culture, that the UNSCOP presented a solution --- "majority proposal" 

 (partition). 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Jan 30, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



QED


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...




Oh yes. That one again.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  theliq, et al,
> 
> The question that sparked this segment of the discussion was: PF Tinmore's Posting #152:  to the Question posed by Mindful's in Posting #141:  Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?
> 
> ...


the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​
Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

You mention resolution 181 a lot. What you always miss is that if the Palestinians did not accept the resolution, partition could not happen. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as UN resolutions state. This is not unique to Palestine. It applies to all people inside defined territory. Related laws are that territory cannot be acquired by war and that it is illegal to annex territory under occupation.

The Palestinians have never ceded any land to Israel.


----------



## RandomVariable (Jan 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger,  theliq, et al,
> ...


What you say might be well and nice and all for the Palestinians but all factors have to be taken into consideration. Do you think the logic you are applying to this particular part of the world should be applied universally?


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You assume I said more than I did.



P F Tinmore said:


> the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​
> Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.


*(COMMENT)*

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine _(a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers)_, was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate."  The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) _until such time as those territories were able to stand alone.  You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs."  The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> You mention resolution 181 a lot. What you always miss is that if the Palestinians did not accept the resolution, partition could not happen. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as UN resolutions state. This is not unique to Palestine. It applies to all people inside defined territory. Related laws are that territory cannot be acquired by war and that it is illegal to annex territory under occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

This is very misleading:

No League of Nation or United Nations resolution, prior to UN Resolution 181(II) stipulates any territorial integrity exclusively for the Arab Palestinian.

Palestinian Declaration of Independence 1988
Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following *the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence*.



Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.



Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations 4 December 2012
_Recalling_ its *resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,*
1. _Reaffirms_ the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;


2. _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;


3. _Expresses the hope_ that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations;7


4. _Affirmsits determination_ to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 *and fulfils the vision of two States*: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;




P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have never ceded any land to Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinian had no territory prior to 1988 for which they had any authority.  Prior to 1988, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian territory which the Arab Palestinian ceded to the Hashemite Kingdom through a Parliamentary process; the use of their right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You assume I said more than I did.
> 
> ...


What part of this refutes my post?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


All of it.


----------



## toastman (Jan 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Are you blind? He refuted, for the 100th time, your lie that the Palestinians did not use resolution 181. Sure, they rejected it at first, but then they used it as a legal basis to declare independence in 1988. I've also provided you with links that say that same thing. The Palestinians even admitted themselves that they used resolution 181.
Do you have memory issues or are you allergic to the truth? I'm leaning towards the latter.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


So then, since Israel and Palestine both accepted resolution 181 then the proposed borders are the international borders between the two.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Nope. There was no mention of permanent international boundaries in resolution 181. When the Palestinians declared independence 1988, they used resolution 181 as a legal basis to declare independence, however by then there was less land for them to declare. 50% less to be exact.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Yes there was. You need to read up.

Resolution 181 never happened and never will happen. I don't know why anybody mentions it.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...





toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



LOL

Resolution 181-Borders of the Arab State.

"The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village. Thence it follows the western boundary line of the villages of `Alma, Rihaniya and Teitaba, thence following the northern boundary line of Meirun village to join the Acre-Safad sub-district boundary line. It follows this line to a point west of Es Sammu'i village and joins it again at the northernmost point of Farradiya. Thence it follows the sub-district boundary line to the Acre-Safad main road. From here it follows the western boundary of Kafr I'nan village until it reaches the Tiberias-Acre sub-district boundary line, passing to the west of the junction of the Acre-Safad and Lubiya-Kafr I'nan roads. From south-west corner of Kafr I'nan village the boundary line follows the western boundary of the Tiberias sub-district to a point close to the boundary line between the villages of Maghar and Eilabun, thence bulging out to the west to include as much of the eastern part of the plain of Battuf as is necessary for the reservoir proposed by the Jewish Agency for the irrigation of lands to the south and east.

The boundary rejoins the Tiberias sub-district boundary at a point on the Nazareth-Tiberias road south-east of the built-up area of Tur'an; thence it runs southwards, at first following the sub-district boundary and then passing between the Kadoorie Agricultural School and Mount Tabor, to a point due south at the base of Mount Tabor. From here it runs due west, parallel to the horizontal grid line 230, to the north-east corner of the village lands of Tel Adashim. It then runs to the north-west corner of these lands, whence it turns south and west so as to include in the Arab State the sources of the Nazareth water supply in Yafa village. On reaching Ginneiger it follows the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the lands of this village to their south-west corner, whence it proceeds in a straight line to a point on the Haifa-Afula railway on the boundary between the villages of Sarid and El Mujeidil. This is the point of intersection.

The south-western boundary of the area of the Arab State in Galilee takes a line from this point, passing northwards along the eastern boundaries of Sarid and Gevat to the north-eastern corner of Nahalal, proceeding thence across the land of Kefar ha Horesh to a central point on the southern boundary of the village of `Ilut, thence westwards along that village boundary to the eastern boundary of Beit Lahm, thence northwards and north-eastwards along its western boundary to the north-eastern corner of Waldheim and thence north-westwards across the village lands of Shafa 'Amr to the south-eastern corner of Ramat Yohanan'. From here it runs due north-north-east to a point on the Shafa 'Amr-Haifa road, west of its junction with the road to I'Billin. From there it proceeds north-east to a point on the southern boundary of I'Billin situated to the west of the I'Billin-Birwa road. Thence along that boundary to its westernmost point, whence it turns to the north, follows across the village land of Tamra to the north-westernmost corner and along the western boundary of Julis until it reaches the Acre-Safad road. It then runs westwards along the southern side of the Safad-Acre road to the Galilee-Haifa District boundary, from which point it follows that boundary to the sea.

The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the sub-districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-district boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the sub-districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point north-east of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first north-westwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zir'in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the district boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway. From here the boundary runs south-westwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh.Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras el Ein road to a point just east of Ras el Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand el'Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu el Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya'Aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na'ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of 'Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El Mismiya, El Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.

From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat el Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir, Es Sharqiya and Ibdis. From the south-east corner of Ibdis village it runs to a point south-west of the built-up area of Beit 'Affa, crossing the Hebron-El Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southwards along the western village boundary of El Faluja to the Beersheba sub-district boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of 'Arab el Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the sub-districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab' at a point situated one kilometre to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab' and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometre, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.

About five kilometres north-east of Ras ez Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.

The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat el Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit Tima. Thence it runs east of El Jiya across the village lands of El Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a south-westerly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza'a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southernly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. el Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-El 'Auja main road to the west of Kh. el Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El Zaiyatin just to the west of El Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of 'Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.

The area of the Arab enclave of Jaffa consists of that part of the town-planning area of Jaffa which lies to the west of the Jewish quarters lying south of Tel-Aviv, to the west of the continuation of Herzl street up to its junction with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road, to the south-west of the section of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road lying south-east of that junction, to the west of Miqve Israel lands, to the north-west of Holon local council area, to the north of the line linking up the north-west corner of Holon with the north-east corner of Bat Yam local council area and to the north of Bat Yam local council area. The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State."

A RES 181 II of 29 November 1947


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Again, Rocco and I have links that proves without doubt that both Israel AND the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis to declare independence.

You have....well....nothing but your opinion....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


OK, now prove that any of it exists.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You're asking me for a link to back up


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

Here you go Tinmore, for the 100th time:

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.[120] A number of scholars have written in support of this view.[121][122][123]

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Sure.

Where are those proposed borders?

Where are the rights of the non Jewish population?

Where is that international city of Jerusalem?

Hmmm???


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Where is the relevance in your post?? The PLO said themselves 181. 
Due to the 1948 war, the Palestinians didn't get exactly what was proposed. Nonetheless, they used 181 as a basis to declare independence, which refutes your earlier.

BTW, where your links ??)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Holy deflection Batman!!!

Wars don't change resolutions. Where is resolution 181? Answer the questions.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

Tinmore, YOU are the one deflecting. I refuted your claim with a valid link, and you proceeded to ask different questions. 

I don't know how to answer the question Where is resolution 181...

But I DO know that you're blabbering on without providing any links whatsoever...

So if you can refute my link somehow with another link, then go ahead. If not, admit you're wrong and we can move on to another subject...


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

Here's a link about their declaration of independence of 1988 from a Palestinian/Arab site:

The Declaration contains an overt *acceptance* that "the United Nations General Assembly *Resolution 181*, of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into two states [...] *provides the legal basis for the right of the Palestinian Arab people to national sovereignty and independence." Our recognition of the authority of Resolution 181,* combined with our acknowledgment (in the same session of the PNC) of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as the basis for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, signaled our formal acceptance of the two-state solution

November 15 1988 The Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine

So it's true that initially they did not accept resolution 181 in 1947, but 40 years later, they did. 

So there goes your 'the Palestinians rejected resolution 181 and that was it' claim.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

Notice the words RECOGNITION and ACCEPTANCE.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> Here's a link about their declaration of independence of 1988 from a Palestinian/Arab site:
> 
> The Declaration contains an overt *acceptance* that "the United Nations General Assembly *Resolution 181*, of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into two states [...] *provides the legal basis for the right of the Palestinian Arab people to national sovereignty and independence." Our recognition of the authority of Resolution 181,* combined with our acknowledgment (in the same session of the PNC) of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as the basis for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, signaled our formal acceptance of the two-state solution
> 
> ...


OK, so the PLO declared independence referencing resolution 181.

Where is that independent Palestine?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a link about their declaration of independence of 1988 from a Palestinian/Arab site:
> ...


JORDAN................


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a link about their declaration of independence of 1988 from a Palestinian/Arab site:
> ...



Not sure how to answer that question.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Indeed, you are batting zero there big guy.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



No, YOU'RE batting zero. I provided valid links that indisputably backed up my claim and refuted yours. You provided nothing.

You lost the debate.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

Maybe you could rephrase your last question.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Really?

You just gave another instance that shows that resolution 181 does not exist.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong. 
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


OK, so they used it. What good did it do?


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Irrelevant.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Irrelevant drivel, as Doc would say.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Indeed, that is what I have been saying.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Yep, 27,446 irrelevant posts, Tinmore. You win a seegar.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Resolution 181 was passed in 1947.

It was rejected.

End of story.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The Palestinians were offered a new country when Israel was created.......................

It was rejected...............

End of story..................


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Which is a LIE..................OTTOMAN EMPIRE ring a bell.

Hell, Syria didn't exist until after WWI..............Iraq, Jordan..............etc...................didn't exist..................and JORDAN is a LARGE PART OF THE MANDATE.


----------



## toastman (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again. 
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 31, 2015)

toastman,  _et al,_

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.



toastman said:


> The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.


They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.  

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea _[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - *816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993)* March 29, 1993]_.  This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit.  However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.  

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development). 

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank _(territories considered occupied since 1967)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian. 

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea _[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - *816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993)* March 29, 1993]_.  This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit.  However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation. 

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank _(territories considered occupied since 1967)_.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > toastman,  _et al,_
> ...


There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.[/QUOTE]
Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.


----------



## theliq (Jan 31, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.[/QUOTE]
Well in your weird world of thought,you hope there is No Political Identity in the West......What errant nonsense that is why "The West" want and support Palestine and Palestinians.

Moreover in the recent tbc


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 31, 2015)

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Well in your weird world of thought,you hope there is No Political Identity in the West......What errant nonsense that is why "The West" want and support Palestine and Palestinians.

Moreover in the recent tbc[/QUOTE]
You read it too, Steve.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Well in your weird world of thought,you hope there is No Political Identity in the West......What errant nonsense that is why "The West" want and support Palestine and Palestinians.

Moreover in the recent tbc[/QUOTE]
When they are governed by Hamas and the Hez................hardly.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.[/QUOTE]
No thanks.

I will stick to original source documents.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No thanks.

I will stick to original source documents.[/QUOTE]
aka the Lies you keep posting.............


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


aka the Lies you keep posting.............[/QUOTE]
So you are calling source documents lies?

WOW!


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No thanks.

I will stick to original source documents.[/QUOTE]
That's your misfortune, Bub. Brittanica is as authentic as a document. It has been used as legal proof in many court cases. You are too hard-headed for your own good.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


So you are calling source documents lies?

WOW![/QUOTE]
I'm calling you a Liar.....................

I've posted the Mandate map from historical records....................you ignore them..................

Why aren't your people bombing Jordan for stealing your land...................oops...........

Oh I forgot, they are your kind................and ALL JEWS MUST DIE....................

Which is the ultimate goal of your propaganda anyway.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


That's your misfortune, Bub. Brittanica is as authentic as a document. It has been used as legal proof in many court cases. You are too hard-headed for your own good.[/QUOTE]
How about quoting the part about resolution 181 not being implemented.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 31, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


I'm calling you a Liar.....................

I've posted the Mandate map from historical records....................you ignore them..................

Why aren't your people bombing Jordan for stealing your land...................oops...........

Oh I forgot, they are your kind................and ALL JEWS MUST DIE....................

Which is the ultimate goal of your propaganda anyway.[/QUOTE]
Can you provide a link for that?


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


How about quoting the part about resolution 181 not being implemented.[/QUOTE]
Screw Resolution 181. It don't mean diddly.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There is some ground here we can probably agree on.



P F Tinmore said:


> There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.
> 
> From what I have found:
> 
> Legally it does.


*(COMMENT)*

If one does not examine the nature of today's State of Palestine, from a strict compliance perspective, there are plenty that would argue that it is a tangible state.   It exists in a tangle and reactive form.  This is true even in the "West."  



P F Tinmore said:


> Politically (at least in the West) it does not.


*(COMMENT)*

If one looks at the "State of Palestine" from its stated legal form, one might argue that what is described under the Basic Law is not the reality of the "State of Palestine" today.  Likewise, it depends on which Arab Palestinian faction one listens to --- to understand what they believe is the legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinian people.

It is also just as arguable to determine if there is truly a "Unity Government" --- or --- if it is a government that has a gangster-like coercive element imbedded within it that disputed the general claim that the "State of Palestine" is that "territory occupied since 1967 (oPt);" or if it is "from the river to the sea, and from north to south."

It is also arguable as to whether the majority of the Arab Palestinians accept that the 1967 border is the "internationally-recognized border" between Israel and the oPt, as in the position held by the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD).


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Can you provide a link for that?[/QUOTE]
Posted the maps many moons ago........ignored by you because it doesn't fit your version of history.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> There is some ground here we can probably agree on.
> 
> ...


Israel is constantly complaining that Palestinian maps and those in other Arab states "erase" Israel.

Palestinian Maps Omitting Israel Jewish Virtual Library

Denying Israel s right to exist PMW

Israel is commonly called "48" or "1948" as in 1948 occupied Palestine. Palestinians living in Israel are called 48 Palestinians.





As far as I can tell, this is correct. Palestine has been a state or country under occupation since its inception. Nobody has posted any documentation to the contrary.


----------



## toastman (Feb 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


LOL what ? You have not posted any documentation to what YOU just said.

You don't even know when Palestine's inception was.


----------



## toastman (Feb 1, 2015)

You see that folks? Tinmore's evidence that there was a country named Palestine in 1948 is a t-shirt that says Palestine 1948


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 1, 2015)

Read the MANDATE for PALESTINE and then say it had no rights, because if you do then the rights given to all the arab muslim groups are also null and void.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## Phoenall (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


 




 Because they did not exert any outside influence on the arab muslims rights to declare independence, that was done by another foreign agency the arab league.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 2, 2015)

AND THE REST YOU SKIMMED OVER

 *and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home*
*

 Which changes your version completely*


----------



## fanger (Feb 2, 2015)

> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.


The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 2, 2015)

fanger, _ et al,_

Why did you cite Article 5?



fanger said:


> > *ART. 5.*
> > The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


*(COMMENT)*

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 2, 2015)

And your evidence of this is what exactly, your own fantasy world. How about a link to support your claim


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.[/QUOTE]




  Not as they were applied in 1920 when the Mandate was undertaken, and the only Palestinians at that time were the Jews. The arab muslims called themselves Syrians.


----------



## fanger (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> fanger, _ et al,_
> 
> Why did you cite Article 5?
> 
> ...


*That is correct.*

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fanger, _ et al,_
> ...


They were offered land and a country...................They chose WAR and LOST.


----------



## toastman (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fanger, _ et al,_
> ...



So the land belonged to the Palestinians, yet in 1947 , a part of the region was offered to them as a country....

PAlestinian Arabs lived on the land and owned land. But the region did not belong to them. Maybe symbolically it did, but that means nothing in real life.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 2, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Jordan, egypt and syria each though it should belong to them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...






  Not as they were applied in 1920 when the Mandate was undertaken, and the only Palestinians at that time were the Jews. The arab muslims called themselves Syrians.[/QUOTE]
Where do you keep getting all of your lies? (link?)

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could _ipso facto_ acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.

The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby inhabitants were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the Treaty’s nationality rules were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s law.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

It simply said "Turkish subjects" without specifying any religion. Most of those subjects were Muslim, then Christians, then Jews respectively. They were all Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


They were not offered any land.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Again you LIE...........


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


What land were they offered and under what condition?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 2, 2015)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for _Economic Union_between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]

*Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8]* Their reason was that it violated the principles ofnational self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


>


The Palestinians were offered half of Palestine.

*Such a deal!*

No wonder they rejected it.


----------



## toastman (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Where do you keep getting all of your lies? (link?)

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could _ipso facto_ acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.

The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby inhabitants were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the Treaty’s nationality rules were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s law.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

It simply said "Turkish subjects" without specifying any religion. Most of those subjects were Muslim, then Christians, then Jews respectively. They were all Palestinians.[/QUOTE]
The treaty Lausanne had NOTHING to do with Palestine.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## toastman (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


It sure looks like a good deal now, since the State of Palestine is even less than what was offered to them


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


And again JORDAN was part of the original Mandate.......................................Why aren't they attacking them........................


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This DID NOT happen; and you know this.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fanger, _ et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You know that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT did not leave it in the hands of the citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for _Economic Union_between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
> 
> ...


Bottom line.

*The partition plan was not implemented.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This DID NOT happen; and you know this.
> 
> ...


And where was this so called Palestine commission when it was time to protect the land and people in its trust?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, with making a statement out of context.



P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

An official release --- for the International Community --- from the UN and the Successor Government (the UN Palestine Commission):



			
				KEY EXCERPT:  PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
			
		

> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*
> 
> *SOURCE:* Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948



*(COMMENT)*

You consistently make these bold and blatantly false statements.  Just because the Plan was not implemented to your satisfaction, does not mean that you have the last word.

The Plan did not require both parties to agree.



			
				GA/RES/181(II) said:
			
		

> F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
> 
> When the independence of *either the Arab or the Jewish State* as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them,* sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> *SOURCE:* UN GA/RES/181(II)



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> ...



Again with the same lies?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, with making a statement out of context.
> 
> ...


1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, *upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.*​

Are they saying that all Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel are Israeli citizens?

I am just looking for something, anything, about resolution 181 that was actually implemented.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


I was just quoting *eagle1462010*

*Widening Of The Buffer Zone Page 25 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

*So don't blame me.*


----------



## toastman (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Can  you give examples of what you might be looking for ?

For example, if you believe that 181 was implemented, what would we see?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You seem to forget that the Arab External Influence (Arab League Attack) on the day of Israeli Independence, as well as the Arab Palestinian insurgency, disrupted the implementation of post-Independence governmental functions.



P F Tinmore said:


> 1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, *upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.*​
> 
> Are they saying that all Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel are Israeli citizens?
> 
> I am just looking for something, anything, about resolution 181 that was actually implemented.



*(OBSERVATION)*

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State* who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship* of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.  (Chapter 3)

*(COMMENT)*

Not everything in a civil war goes according to plan.  But everything up to all the Steps Preparatory to Independence in the Plan was effected, to include independence.  But the Arab Palestinian, through the Arab Higher Committee made their intention not only --- NOT to cooperate --- but to engage in hostilities --- as clear as could be made.

I find it totally absurd for the Arab Palestinian to openly refuse to participate in the Plan, create the conditions for a civil war over the Independence of Israel --- and then complain that it wasn't perfectly executed.   Every Arab Palestinian opposed the Plan in every way, including citizenship plans within the resolution *(“anything deriving therefrom”)*.

The Arab Palestinian stated their position quite clearly:



			
				First Monthly Progress Report by the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) (Successor Government) to the Security Council said:
			
		

> 6. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom”. The Subsequent communication of 6 February to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Arab Higher Committee set forth the following conclusions of the Arab Higher Committee Delegation:​
> 
> 
> “a. The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.
> ...



I can understand why you are having difficulty finding any portion of the Plan favorably concerning Arab Palestinians.  They simply forfieted everything.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 2, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You seem to forget that the Arab External Influence (Arab League Attack) on the day of Israeli Independence, as well as the Arab Palestinian insurgency, disrupted the implementation of post-Independence governmental functions.
> 
> ...


They rejected the partition of their country as they had every right to do.

They fought against the military takeover of their country as they had every right to do. The aggression was on the Zionist's side.

They didn't forfeit shit.


----------



## Hossfly (Feb 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Tinmore, the Arab League, since 1948 have forced the Palestinians to do their bidding. They had to forfeit everything. And you are aware of it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 3, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Forfeit is the government term for stealing. They use a different word to distinguish themselves from the other crooks.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 3, 2015)

fanger said:


>






 A special British coin minted for the Palestinian mandate.  Which is why it is in Arabic, English and Hebrew


----------



## fanger (Feb 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


If jews were Palestinians, Palestine would be written in Hebrew?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fanger, _ et al,_
> ...





 The MANDATE never quit Palestine at all as it is still in place, it was the British that quit Palestine because they did not want another war. The citizens were the Jews after the arab muslims turned down every offer placed on the table since 1926


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 3, 2015)

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...





 It is right underneath the English spelling of Palestine, or cant your ISLAMONAZI eyes see that. Have you been brainwashed not to recognise Hebrew


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Where do you keep getting all of your lies? (link?)

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could _ipso facto_ acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.

The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby inhabitants were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the Treaty’s nationality rules were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s law.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

It simply said "Turkish subjects" without specifying any religion. Most of those subjects were Muslim, then Christians, then Jews respectively. They were all Palestinians.[/QUOTE]




 MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens, not nation, state or country of Palestine. The arab muslims called the Jews Palestinians ( more correctly balestinians because they could not pronounce the P ) as a derogatory name as they had done since 627 C.E. when Mohamed declared a fatwah on them. Read the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that sets out special treatment for the Jews and sets them higher than the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 UN res 181 says they were........................


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



it was
פלשתינה


----------



## fanger (Feb 3, 2015)

Jews recognized the state of Palestine at that time?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens, not nation, state or country of Palestine. The arab muslims called the Jews Palestinians ( more correctly balestinians because they could not pronounce the P ) as a derogatory name as they had done since 627 C.E. when Mohamed declared a fatwah on them. Read the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that sets out special treatment for the Jews and sets them higher than the arab muslims.[/QUOTE]

The Palestinians called themselves the people of Palestine.  The Jews called themselves Zionists as the correspondence between the British and the two parties confirm. Source documents, mind you.

Excerpt from a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to the British:

"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. - See more at: 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 

Excerpt from the Zionist Organization to the British:

SIR, With reference to your letter of June 3rd, receipt of which has already been acknowledged, I have the honour to inform you that the Executive of *the Zionist Organisation* have considered the statement relative to the policy of His Majesty's Government in Palestine, of which you have been good enough to furnish them with a copy, and have passed the following resolution : - See more at: 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


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 3, 2015)

fanger said:


> Jews recognized the state of Palestine at that time?



british mandate


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 4, 2015)

fanger said:


> Jews recognized the state of Palestine at that time?






 No state of Palestine until 1988, what there was in place was the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE under the BRITISH MANDATE that had to provide certain of life's niceties.   For example money, postage stamps, passports etc.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 4, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The Palestinians called themselves the people of Palestine.  The Jews called themselves Zionists as the correspondence between the British and the two parties confirm. Source documents, mind you.

Excerpt from a letter from the Palestinian Delegation to the British:

"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. - See more at: 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 

Excerpt from the Zionist Organization to the British:

SIR, With reference to your letter of June 3rd, receipt of which has already been acknowledged, I have the honour to inform you that the Executive of *the Zionist Organisation* have considered the statement relative to the policy of His Majesty's Government in Palestine, of which you have been good enough to furnish them with a copy, and have passed the following resolution : - See more at: 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 [/QUOTE]




 Proving that the arab muslims were not agreeable with the agreements already made by them and Balfour in respect of Palestine and the Jews. Showing that the muslims will make agreements and then renege on them when they have what they want. The LoN should have sent a task force in to Palestine and instructed the arab muslims that the agreements made stand and any civil unrest would be put down with force.

 The Jordanians and Lebanese showed the world the way to go in settling the Palestinians and defanging them.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 4, 2015)

Actually, the Palestine Delegation to London was composed of Christians and Muslim, the Christian Palestinians were the wealthiest and most influential Palestinians in those days.  The Christians and Muslims had never agreed to cede their lands to Europeans.  The Europeans decided to take their lands and give them to other Europeans they really did not like much, the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 4, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Actually, the Palestine Delegation to London was composed of Christians and Muslim, the Christian Palestinians were the wealthiest and most influential Palestinians in those days.  The Christians and Muslims had never agreed to cede their lands to Europeans.  The Europeans decided to take their lands and give them to other Europeans they really did not like much, the Jews.







 More incitement through ISLAMONAZI BLOOD LIBEL


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens, not nation, state or country of Palestine. The arab muslims called the Jews Palestinians ( more correctly balestinians because they could not pronounce the P ) as a derogatory name as they had done since 627 C.E. when Mohamed declared a fatwah on them. Read the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that sets out special treatment for the Jews and sets them higher than the arab muslims.[/QUOTE]
It is a typical mistake to believe that the mandate was a place, It was not. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust.

The mandate charter, itself, called Palestine a country numerous times.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

It is even a bigger mistake to think that you, and you alone, understand the intent and purpose of the Mandate for Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is a typical mistake to believe that the mandate was a place, It was not. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust.
> 
> The mandate charter, itself, called Palestine a country numerous times.


*(COMMENT)*

Calling a plot of land, a territory --- by the name of "country" does not infer any special quality to it or the people associated with it.  To imply that it does, is an exercise in foolishness.

Palestine was a subsection of territory, a geopolitical space, within the overall land that the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers at the end of the War.  It was a territory defined at the discretion --- and for the convenience of --- the Allied Powers; and not a specific land that was formerly autonomous, self-governing, or a former political subdivision of the Empire.  Any such suggestion that "Palestine" _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_ had some special status conferred upon it by the previous sovereign --- or the --- successor government, is more than ridiculous.  The territory _(formerly under the Mandate)_ was historically contained within the Vilayet of Syria, under the Imperial hand of the Provincial Government in Damascus.

At no time during the 800 years of Ottoman Control, prior to the umbrella of the Mandate, did this territory have sovereignty unto itself or demonstrate independence.  And nothing in the Treaties of Sevres or Lausanne altered that status.  In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne does not confer any special recognition upon "Palestine."  None at all.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> It is even a bigger mistake to think that you, and you alone, understand the intent and purpose of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> ...


We have heard that Israeli bullshit a gazillion times.

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation,* and that *Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​


----------



## fanger (Feb 4, 2015)




----------



## fanger (Feb 4, 2015)

Government of Palestine bearer bond


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

One cannot "cherry-pick" a strategy from a single Meeting Session and then spread it around as if it were policy.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In any complex issue over an extended period, it will be easy to find conflicting ideas expressed.  And it will be easy to cherry-pick those ideas and formulate an argument.  Having said that, and from the very same LoN 32d Session, one might find this having been stated:

"The aim is the termination of the mandate in respect of Trans-Jordan and the greater part of Palestine, with a view to the creation of two new independent sovereign States--the one Arab and the other Jewish--and the reservation of certain places in Palestine, some permanently, others possibly only temporarily, under British mandate, such mandate involving modifications of the existing mandate." - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 

I believe that on the basis of partition and the establishment of a Jewish State, small as that is, it will be possible to find accommodation for far more refugees than by a continuation of the present mandatory regime. For under that regime every move to introduce more refugees will be met with resistance on the part of the Arabs. On the other hand, if a Jewish State is set up under a Jewish Government, which I believe would be a good and tolerant Government, it will, if the Arabs and the rest of the country are granted independent freedom, be easier to induce the Arabs to allow Jews even to enter their areas. I believe that, if this question is once settled in a clear and definite manner, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews will begin to improve. I am therefore quite satisfied in my own mind that, looking at the Palestine question as a possible solution to the world Jewish problem, there is more hope for the Jews in partition than by a continuation of the system in operation during the last few years. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Neither your quote, nor the one I just posted, represent a hard policy decision.  Merely they represent the various aspects to which the developments of the Middle East Question of Palestine were covered, and the open dialog on the issues as seen at that time (1937).

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> One cannot "cherry-pick" a strategy from a single Meeting Session and then spread it around as if it were policy.
> 
> ...


*Mandate for Palestine*

Yet you continuously imply that the Palestinians have no say in what happens in their country.

The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. *It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
In fact it is the foreigners who have no legitimate say in Palestine. Everything you post is about foreigners.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al.

Oh ---- for heavens sakes.  Please go the the actual ICJ Judgment #5 26 March 1925. (The Mavrommatis - Jerusalem Concessions File E.c. V. Docket VI.a.  Then go straight to page #51 (the last page).



P F Tinmore said:


> *Mandate for Palestine*
> 
> Yet you continuously imply that the Palestinians have no say in what happens in their country.
> 
> ...



*(OBSERVATION)*

FOR THESE REASONS, The Court, having heard both Parties, gives judgment as follows : 

I. That the concessions granted to M Mavroniniatis under the Agreements signed on January 27th, 1914, between him and the City of Jerusalem, regarding certain works to be carried out  at Jerusalem, are valid; 

That the existence, for a certain space of time, of a right on the part of M. Rutenberg to require the annulment of the aforesaid concessions of M. Mavrommatis was not in conformity with the *international obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine*; 

That no loss to M. Mavrommatis, resulting from this circumstance, has been proved;

That therefore the Greek Government's claim for an indemnity must be dismissed ; 

2. That Article 4 of the Protocol signed at 1, Lausanne on July 23rd, 1923, concerning certain concessions granted in the Ottoman Empire, is applicable to the above-mentioned concessions granted to M. Mavromniatis.​ 
*(COMMENT)
*
This was a commerical claim made on the basis of a debt.  In the final analysis --- the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held in Judgment #5, that the "Mandatory for Palestine" was the successor government for Palestine and therefore Jerusalem; and responsible for the debt payment.

I have seen a number of pro-Palestinians try to use this hat trick.  It simply is not applicable.

Judgment #5 does not set a precedent for a Government of Palestine.  In this case, on the title page, you can quite clearly see that the Applicant is the Government of Greece and the Respondent is the Government of Great Britain (the Mandatory Power).  You can again quite see that the ICJ (on Page 7) quite clearly states that the Government of Palestine is the Great Britain:

This application concludes with a request that the Court may be pleased to give judgment to the effect that the Government of Palestine and consequently also the Government of His Britannic Majesty have, since 1921, wrongfully refused to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrc~mmatis under the contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities in regard to the works specified above, and that the Government of His Britannic Majesty shall make reparation for the consequent loss incurred by the said Greek subject, a loss which is estimated at £234.339 together with interest at six percent.​
The  was no other Government other than UK/GB.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al.
> 
> Oh ---- for heavens sakes.  Please go the the actual ICJ Judgment #5 26 March 1925. (The Mavrommatis - Jerusalem Concessions File E.c. V. Docket VI.a.  Then go straight to page #51 (the last page).
> 
> ...


As the temporarily assigned administration I can understand that Britain would be responsible party but I don't see where it changes the original party to the case. If Palestine was not the successor state then the mandate would not have that responsibility.

So I don't understand the point of your post.

Also, you did not address the other points.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 4, 2015)

The only real deal with the Palestinians is the death or removal of Israel................

They will not have it any other way.


----------



## fanger (Feb 4, 2015)

Who, Israel?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Feb 4, 2015)

Hamas, Hez, Muslim Brotherhood.........etc................

So, no peace and no nation for Palestine........


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Please don't play dumb.



P F Tinmore said:


> As the temporarily assigned administration I can understand that Britain would be responsible party but I don't see where it changes the original party to the case. If Palestine was not the successor state then the mandate would not have that responsibility.


*(COMMENT)*

You are using the wrong term:  Not Successor State --- Use Successor Government.  _(There was no successor state.)_

The Successor government to the Ottoman Territory in the ICJ Complaint was the Mandatory for Palestine; acting as the Government for the territory.   



P F Tinmore said:


> So I don't understand the point of your post.


*(COMMENT)*

You are asserting that the Judgment inferred some sort of "State of Palestine" in which there were Palestinians exercising some measure of autonomy and self-government.  That is not the case at all.  In fact, the Judgment show the exact opposite.  Even the infrastructure project in the Mavroniniatis Case had to be assumed by the Mandatory.




P F Tinmore said:


> Also, you did not address the other points.


*(COMMENT)*

The Judgment concluded that the territorial property passed from the Ottoman Empire to the Successor Government (the Mandatory).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Please don't play dumb.
> 
> ...


You are not being honest again, Rocco. The mandate never took possession of any land.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

I don't believe that I addressed any real estate issues at all _(taking "possession of any land")_.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What the ICJ was taking about was that the Mandatory for Palestine was acting, in effect, as the Government for Palestine (as defined by the Allied Powers), and assumed the responsibilities and obligations of that role.  And I agree that the ICJ made a good and fair call.  The Mandatory, for better of worse, assumed that role when it assume the duties of the Mandatory.

Again, we are not talking about any "possession of real estate" of the establishment of "sovereignty" as a state.  What we are talking about are the assumption of governance.  There was no Arab Palestinian entity that had any competence or potential to assume the role and duties of self-governance, even to cover this one small case _(The Mavroniniatis Case)_, let alone nation building.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I don't believe that I addressed any real estate issues at all _(taking "possession of any land")_.
> 
> ...


The Palestinians were not allowed to exercise sovereignty because they would change immigration and other policies that they opposed.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are making a statement of latent intent; a judgment.  I don't know that there is a direct link between the Arab Palestinian self-governance and immigration (_alla_ 1925 thru 1930).  The link is between the stated intent (the establishment of a Jewish National Home) and the immigration policy of those Jews willing to assist in building the national home.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were not allowed to exercise sovereignty because they would change immigration and other policies that they opposed.


*(COMMENT)*

I honestly believe that the assessment of the Arab Palestinian was such that the Allied Powers did not think of them as very capable for self-governance.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are making a statement of latent intent; a judgment.  I don't know that there is a direct link between the Arab Palestinian self-governance and immigration (_alla_ 1925 thru 1930).  The link is between the stated intent (the establishment of a Jewish National Home) and the immigration policy of those Jews willing to assist in building the national home.
> 
> ...


Do you have a link for that?

I think that the mandate's stupid policies would go down the toilet if the Palestinians were allowed to vote on them.


----------



## toastman (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



I'm just curious as to why you bother asking for links? Even if Rocco were to provide a link that indisputably proved his point, you would still argue against it (not necessarily this example, I'm talking in general)


----------



## Hossfly (Feb 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 5, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


It is a typical mistake to believe that the mandate was a place, It was not. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust.

The mandate charter, itself, called Palestine a country numerous times.[/QUOTE]





 WRONG it stated from the first that it was the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE hereinafter called Palestine. It does not say state, nation or country of Palestine once


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 5, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...






 To which mandate are you referring as there was more than one in force. There was the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and then there was the BRITISH MANDATE two distinct and separate entities. And neither made the claim that Palestine was a state, nation or country. As for the nationality law that was enacted by the mandate not by Palestine, to give the residents legal identities when travelling abroad. That is why the passports all stated BRITISH, as that was the controlling nation at the time. Try thinking of International law as it stood in 1920 and not as it stands today and you might see it clearly


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 5, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> ...





 So this means the arab muslims have no say either as they are foreign to the land


----------

