# Palestinian Peace Proposal



## MJB12741 (May 16, 2015)

And the Pali's & their supporters bitch about Israrel's peace proposals.  Don't that beat all?  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!

PA Parliament Jews Have No Right to Even One Inch of Israel WIBR WARN Radio--Covering the End of Days as they happen


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 16, 2015)

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a *non-binding* *proposal* – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal *never went to the Security Council for consideration. *Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was *vitiated (*became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do *that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence -* actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, *had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless* ….. Unless it was recognised and *legitimized* by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state*.* In international law *only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. *

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

NEWS-ON-A-WIRE - 1948


----------



## gtopa1 (May 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
> 
> Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a *non-binding* *proposal* – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.
> 
> ...



And yet it did,  does, will do and all power to Israel in its fight against murderous Palestinian, Syrian and any other terrorist scum.  Britain, as the mandated Power at the time, most definitely had the right to establish the State of Israel. The UN Assembled approved it, and now only gutless murdering scum and their apologists oppose it.



> This article is about the Mandate instrument passed by the League of Nations granting Britain a mandate over the territories of the Ottoman Empire, that today are the State of Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. For a history of the period, see Mandatory Palestine and Emirate of Transjordan.
> *League of Nations - Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan Memorandum*
> 
> 
> ...



Bad luck that Arafat hated Jews more than he loved his people. Damn him to Hades!!

Greg


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2015)

The Jewish state does not depend on or require the approval of the Palestinians.  Never did, does not now, and never will.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
> 
> Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a *non-binding* *proposal* – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.
> 
> ...



Not that it would have made a difference for Israel, but the Palestinians did accept resolution 181...in 1988.....


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
> 
> Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a *non-binding* *proposal* – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.
> 
> ...







 You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
> ...


They were created the same.

But then foreigners went down to Palestine from Europe and drove the natives out of their homes.


----------



## gtopa1 (May 17, 2015)

ffffffffee


P F Tinmore said:


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



Damn it: they stuffed up the Ottomans big time!!!...er...so they should have.

Greg


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 WRONG the arab muslim hordes tried to drive the Jews out of their homes from 1921 till the present day. The Jews did nothing to the arab muslims until they started to attack the Jews. This led to the formation of Jewish defence groups that went from place to place to protect Jews from arab muslim terrorist groups and gangs. Then in 1948 Israel declared independence and the arab muslim armies invaded trying to mass murder all the Jews, so the Jews evicted those arab muslims living in Israel with a known connection to the terrorist groups, in line with INTERNATIONAL LAW of that time. Many were recent illegal arab muslim migrants which is why the UN refused to grant them refugee status.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


You need to read up. And I don't mean Israeli propaganda sites.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Actions have reactions.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What did he say that was wrong?


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 I have which is why I destroy your posts every time, you only know the islamonazi version of events that is based on propaganda and blood libels


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Indeed they do. The Zionists started a never ending war.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Actually, the Arabs started the war. They started the initial war in 1947, and 5 Arab states started the war in 1948, which is what really started the main problems for the Palestinians. So much for the 5 Arab states trying to help the Palestinians


----------



## MJB12741 (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Not exactly.  The Arabs started the war by uniting to annihilate the state of Israel.  And the Zionists kept on fueling it into an endless conflict by making peace offerings to Palestinians, building a security fence & granting Palestinians their own Jew free land so the squatters can remain in Israel.  Shame on those Zionists in Israel for not treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers did & still do in the surrounding Arab countries.  Want peace?  History has proven that king Hussein was right.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


So the Zionists went to Palestine so the Arabs would start a war with them?

You are a hoot.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



So that;s the conclusion you came up with after reading my post? You have serious issues with reading comprehension.

The Zionists went to 'Palestine' to create a homeland for themselves, and were attacked by Arabs. I have proved this many many many MANY times. After declaring independence, 5 Arab states invaded the region and attacked Israel from all sides. How did Israel start a war ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 So who were the Zionists in 627 C.E. when the war started and it became a religious command to the muslims to " KILL THE JEWS "


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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





 Not quite the Zionists were invited to Palestine by its sovereign owners because the land was devoid of life. Once they started to make the land fertile and capable of sustaining life the arab muslims migrated illegally. When they found the Jews were more hardy than those they were used to they decided to attack and steal their lands, only to be beaten back. So they started a series of lies and blood libels to blacken the Jews name and to attract more terrorists to their cause. The war has been ongoing since mohammed instigated the genocide of the Jewish tribe at Medina


----------



## RoccoR (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This logic is a double-edged sword --- especially for the Palestinian Arab --- the enemy population in WWI and the enemy population in WWII.



P F Tinmore said:


> In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.


*(COMMENT)*

When did the Arab Palestinian gain the authority over the area formerly under Mandate?



P F Tinmore said:


> Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a *non-binding* *proposal* – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.
> 
> The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal *never went to the Security Council for consideration. *Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

First --- the *Partition Plan [A/RES/181 (II)]* UN Voting (*NOT* by the Narrowest of Margins):

Final vote
In favor, (33 countries, 72% of voting)
Against, (13 countries, 28% of voting)
Abstentions, (10 countries)
Absent, (1 country)

The truth is, the *Partition Plan [A/RES/181 (II)]* went to the UN Security Council; with the Security Council playing a vital role in the implementation of the Plan (Part I --- Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence):

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.​



P F Tinmore said:


> As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”
> 
> The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.


*(COMMENT)*

The Zionist, or any name by which the Arab wish to describe the Jewish immigrants willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home under the Mandate for Palestine, as citizens of Palestine, had the exact same rights to self-determination as the Arab and did not take the territory described under the Partition Plan by force.  Instead, the conflict was triggered by Hostile Arab Palestinians represented "*Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine*, defying the resolution [A/RES/181(II)] of the General Assembly and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force (as aggressor nations) the settlement envisaged therein."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Where is the treaty ceding land to Israel?

Link?


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



There is no treaty ceding land to Israel. This is not a real estate issue. Where does it say that there must be a treaty to cede land in order to declare independence ?

You keep bringing up this land transfer treaty as if it is a pre requisite to declare independence, but it's not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This logic is a double-edged sword --- especially for the Palestinian Arab --- the enemy population in WWI and the enemy population in WWII.
> 
> ...


When did the Arab Palestinian gain the authority over the area formerly under Mandate?​
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

Prior to 1978.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain the right to territorial integrity?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


A state should have a "defined territory." Where did Israel get a defined territory?


----------



## member (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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



*"The Zionists went to 'Palestine' to create a homeland for themselves..."*

1 place...it was already planned in advance.......(_a.f.a.G.i.c. - y.G_.)...


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Nice deflection.

Israel is a sovereign state. A sovereign state must have defined territory. Israel got it when they declared independence on that land (obviously(


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Link defining the land Israel received in 1948.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Israel didn't 'receive' land. They declared independence on the land allotted to her in the partition plan. That land then became known as 'Israel'. What's so hard to understand ? 
You keep applying 'Tinmore Pre Requisites' to real life,  If it was necessary for Israel to sign some sort of treaty to acquire land in order for them to declare independence, then the U.N certainly would not have approved of the creation of the new state and would not have made Israel a full member one year later...


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


The Zionists went to 'Palestine' to create a homeland for themselves,​
You left something out.

The Zionists went to 'Palestine' to create a homeland for themselves,* in Palestine.*

And they do not want it there.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


They declared independence on the land allotted to her in the partition plan.​
That there was no allocation in the partition *plan.* It was just a plan that was not implemented.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Again Tinmore???? Remember, I have links that say otherwise... All you have are a bunch of ridiculous questions



"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly *accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947"*


Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



"The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan"


United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 to pretend to be legitimate.

It doesn't matter. they were riding a dead horse.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

"in the part of Palestine allocated to them in the Partition plan"

UN Resolution 181 - 1948


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You keep posting the same lies about resolution 181. You need to stop doing that.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

WRMEA The Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

"UN Resolution 181 allotted Jews 56 percent of the territory of Palestine"


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

"The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan."

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 - 1945 1952 - Milestones - Office of the Historian


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

"Moreover, the territory allocated to the Jewish State"

http://world-ice.com/Articles/Inequity.pdf


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...


----------



## MJB12741 (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


> I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...



Please don't confuse him with the facts or he won't be so entertaining anymore.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

toastman said:


> I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...


I know, but:

The partition plan was not implemented.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The ICJ describes these scores of events in seven words: “The Plan of Partition was not implemented.”14 http://www.mythsandfacts.org/replyonlineedition/chapter-4.html 

It was merely a recommendation that the Security Council did not implement.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...
> ...



Both sides accepted it and used the resolution to declare independence. So yes, it was implemented.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...
> ...



For the first link, you forgot to post what was written before:

"Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out. The partition plan was not implemented"
What it means is that at the time it was not implemented. It's referring to 1947.


----------



## toastman (May 17, 2015)

"What resulted was Resolution 181, a non-binding _recommendation_ to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties — Arabs and Jews"

http://www.think-israel.org/hertz.unresolutions181and242.html

Well since both sides accepted the resolution, it was implemented.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Mandate for Palestine for about the 100th time, don't you know how to read English.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

toastman said:


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






 There is ity is called the Mandate for Palestine that sets out 78% of Palestine for the arab muslims and 22% for the Jews. On contemporary maps they are called arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







When they declared independence under the terms of 181, which they have not exercised yet.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 From the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which set in stone the defined territory of the Jewish national home. Link provided many times in the past.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 UN res 181 and LoN mandate for Palestine 1923


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 Yes Palestine the area on the maps, never a nation until 1988.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 UN LINK that says 181 was never implemented.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 LINK from a non partisan source ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...
> ...







 Yet your link clearly says that 181 is a legal pillar for Palestinian free determinastion

 Had the recommendations of UN Resolution 181 been accepted and implemented by both parties, it would have been the foundation for the creation in Palestine of an Arab state and a Jewish state, and as a result would have terminated the Mandate for Palestine.


The Court’s careless ‘legal review’ of the status of the Territories reaches its apex in the way the ICJ relates to Resolution 181. The Court ignores Arab total rejectionism of the “Partition Plan” and views the _recommendation_ of Resolution 181 as if it was a valid Security Council _directive_.

The ICJ cites Resolution 181 as one of the _legal pillars_ supporting the right of Palestinian Arabs to self-determination alongside the “Mandate for Palestine.”

It appears that the ICJ was unaware of the fact that in November 1947, all Arab states voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 and kept their promise to defy its implementation by force.

The ICJ in its preamble states:

“Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish, …”

In fact, Resolution 181 was a _non-binding_ resolution that only _recommended_ partition. It _never_ “partitioned” or “mandated” _anything_ as the ICJ tries to inject.

The 1947 “Partition Plan” was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandator and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine. The first was in 1922 when Great Britain obtained the League of Nations’ approval under Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine to cut away the territory east of the Jordan River – Trans-Jordan, today’s Jordan, for the benefit of the Arabs of Palestine. But this did not satisfy the Arabs who wanted the entire country.

Every scheme since 1922 has been rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab recommendations. This was not because the suggestions were “unbalanced,” as the ICJ _has been told _in Arab affidavits and as stated in paragraph 71 of the Court opinion, but because these plans recognized the Jews as a nation and gave the Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political dominance.

The ICJ’s use of the term “unbalanced” in describing the reason for Arab rejectionism of Resolution 181 hardly fits reality. 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate for the Jews was _excised_ in 1922 to create a fourth Arab state: Trans-Jordan.

The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of _Oppenheim’s International Law,_ clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle _pacta sunt servanda_,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

*“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”
*
Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:
*
“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.*

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


----------



## Linkiloo (May 18, 2015)

The history is immaterial at this point. The Palestinians and their supporters have to accept that and move on. Their current approach isn't helping them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


When Britain left Palestine they handed the keys to the UNPC not Israel.

It is you who has a reading problem.


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 AND what has that to do with the fact that the LoN granted 22% of Palestine as the Jewish national home, and it entered into International law in 1923.     25 years before Britain threw in the towel


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


OK, so Israel accepted it and Palestine accepted it.

Now all we have to do is get the Security Council to implement it.

Let me know when that happens.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Isn't it just awful how Israel caused the collapse of the Ottoman Empire giving rise to foreign power intervention.  Shame on those Zionists for doing that.  Right Tinmore?


----------



## RoccoR (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you are ignoring some basic facts.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Prior to 1978, and relative to the 1948 War of Independence, A/RES/33/34 has absolutely no impact.  A non-binding resolution cannot be applied either conceptually or legally in a retroactive fashion three decades after the fact.  If that were true, and laws made today applied to the past --- there would be no country that would have sovereign integrity; including all the Arab Countries established.  In a very practical sense, there is a limit to the applicability of the Palestinian self-determination.

The Partition Plan was implemented, in as much as the portion that was accepted, in the view of the UN and UNPC --- the "resolution of last November 29 has been implemented" in 1948.  Further, the Resolution A/RES/33/34 does not specify what particular activities Israel took that denied "the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination and independence."  Nor does the 1978 resolution outline what is considered the territory to which the Palestinians should have territorial integrity.  Remembering that in 1978, the territory of the West Bank was still Jordanian Sovereign Territory by Palestinian Self-determination of the Parliament.

Further, the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 26 November 2013 A/RES/68/12 - Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People recalls its resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, 3375 (XXX) and 3376 (XXX) of 10 November 1975, 31/20 of 24 November 1976 and all its subsequent relevant resolutions, including those adopted at its emergency special sessions and its resolution 67/20 of 30 November 2012, all of which "promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, to support the Middle East peace process for the achievement of the* two-State solution *on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."  All of which is in direct contravention to the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) position that "Palestine" is defined as:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures."  This is true in the 2013 Islamic Resistance Movement position paper by Khaled Meshal_ [Chairman of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)]_, and is constant with the HoAP position held in 1966 with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. The HoAP have made it clear that they cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom _(everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void)_. They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations.  This was there position in 1948  and  it is their position today.  The HoAP Islamic Resistance Movement considers any position or consideration in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is again --- null and void.  It is the view held by HoAP Islamic Resistance Movement and the Fatah Fedayeen that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.  Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors; and the partition of Palestine in 1947 under Resolution 181(II) and the establishment of the State of Israel pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence are entirely illegal.  From the beggining, the HoAP stated _(through the Arab High Committee)_ that the Arab Palestinian will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.  

*(SHORT-TERM)*

Until such time that the HoAP alters its policies, it is not reasonable to assume that the attitude and conviction will approach any level of seriousness that will allow for each side to negotiate for a lasting peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (May 18, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
> ...






Phoenall said:


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





Phoenall said:


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




The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants.  There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations.  Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.


*"UNITED
NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*












 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE*



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*​
"14. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946. Conversely, of course, the Arab proportion has fallen since 1922. The Moslem proportion of the population (almost entirely Arab) has fallen from about 75 per cent of the total to 60 per cent, and the Christian proportion (very largely Arab) from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. Thus, at the present time about one-third of the total settled population is Jewish.

(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.* The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16.* The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. *Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## RoccoR (May 18, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

You seem to love this feeder information.  You've made it known several times now.



montelatici said:


> The only hordes were the hordes of Europeans that invaded Palestine at the expense of the Christian and Muslim inhabitants.  There were no non-Jewish migrants to Palestine to speak of as reported by the UN and League of Nations.  Nearly all the invading migrants were European Jews. So quit telling fairy tales.
> 
> 
> *"UNITED
> ...


*(QUESTION)*

What is the relevance of this information, given it was considered at the time A/RES/181(II) was considered and adopted?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated


*The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”*
The ICJ Bench states in paragraph 71 of its opinion that:

“… on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution.”

Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the schemes that preceded it, Resolution 181’s validity hinged on acceptance by _both parties_ of the General Assembly’s recommendation.

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of _Oppenheim’s International Law,_ clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,7 Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle _pacta sunt servanda_,8 that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“…* the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”*

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“…* The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control*.”9

Such attempts by Palestinians (and now by the ICJ) to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 almost six decades after its rejection as if nothing had happened, are totally inadmissible. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.


 Reply Online Book Chapter 4


----------



## Phoenall (May 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Whats wrong with your other UN report that you relied on so much, was it the fact it put arab muslim illegal immigration as 60% of the total immigration to Palestine.

 Do explain what wonder drugs the arab muslims invented that stopped all deaths between 1931 and 1941 allowing the arab muslim population to double.


----------



## member (May 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I can keep going if you'd like Tinmore...
> ...




*"I know, but:..."*








- It was already destined for Israel---to be Israel... 



- the other thing:  just what planet earth needs: Another ISLAMic *terror*ist hell-hole. you're not blind. 

 you know/see.  but for some sick reason, you just like looking the other way -- east.

good to know, Tel Aviv _ain't_...Tel Al el abu.




_bye skinmore_....


----------



## MJB12741 (May 18, 2015)

member said:


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



Excellent points.  Iran was once the greatest nation on earth.  The very heart of the Persian empire.  The home of Cyrus the Great.  Just look what happened to Iran after the Islamic invasion.  From the grandeur & glory of Persepolis under Zoroastrian rule to the slums of Shiras under Muslim rule.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated
> 
> 
> *The ICJ assumes that Israel’s independence is a result of a partial implementation of the “Partition Plan.”*
> ...


It looks like much of the ICJ report was based on assumptions because they were not charged with investigating some information.

A good example of how this happens is when Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked Goldstone if he thought that Israel had the right to defend itself. Goldstone's response was "that is a given." What does that mean? Goldstone has heard his entire life that Israel has the right to defend itself so confirming that to be true was not a consideration.

What "everybody knows" (like the world is flat) might not be true at all.


----------



## montelatici (May 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You seem to love this feeder information.  You've made it known several times now.
> 
> ...



The relevance, Rocco, is that many of your buddies deny the fact that the migrants to Palestine were overwhelming Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (May 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Why when its implementation is not required under International law, as your own link stated
> ...







 Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right".     Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.


----------



## Phoenall (May 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 And you deny the truth that the vast majority of immigrants were arab muslims, even when your own links say they made up 60% of the total numbers. If the Jews migrating legally and in accordance with international law numbered 1500 a year and the arab muslims migrating illegally numbered 3,000 then the arab muslim numbers were greater than the Jewish numbers.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Israel should remove all Palestinian squatters who hold no titles or deeds to the land they stole.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


There is a lot of "say so" about Israel that cannot be documented.


----------



## Penelope (May 19, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine *did not have the right* to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
> ...



since the Israelites have broken the resolution its no longer binding. AS BIBI said today, Jerusalem is ours and will not be divided. Their doom will come when they take down that Dome, they are waiting for Iran to be dismantled first.


----------



## Penelope (May 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



or believed if its from Israel, they are changing Wiki articles as we speak.


----------



## Penelope (May 19, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Who do you think was living there that Britain found a need to make a division between the Pals and Ashkenazis?  The Pals.  What is it about this you do not understand?


----------



## Phoenall (May 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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





Like what ?

 The granting of the land to the Jews is documented in the LoN Mandate.

 The Israeli's right to defend against terrorist attacks and acts of war is embodied in the UN charter and International law.

 So what "say so" about Israel is not documented. ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 19, 2015)

Penelope said:


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







 EVIDENCE like producing the before and after and the IP address of the person who changed them.

 You do realise that IP addresses are country specific don't you ?


----------



## MJB12741 (May 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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




Right on.  But we sure have plenty of documentation on Palestinian terrorists dedicated to annihilate Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 19, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


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


Is name calling all you have?

Sad.


----------



## RoccoR (May 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come-on now Paul.  that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:

*32002F0475*
*Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism *

_Official Journal L 164 , 22/06/2002 P. 0003 - 0007_
Article 1

Terrorist offenses and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offenses under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
shall be deemed to be terrorist offenses:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.​(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.​(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
Frankel, Shaar, and Yifrach were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.​(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

Thousands of rocket and Mortar attacks.
(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

*Pan Am Flight 73 (1986)*: While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi, Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73.
On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt, as she was sailing from Alexandria to Ashdod, Israel.
(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

"Several illegal firearms were seized by the police in the flat of the late Palestinian ambassador," Jamal al Jamal, Prague police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova told CNN about al Jamal, 57.
The Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday it intercepted an Iranian shipment of "advanced" weapons bound for "terrorist organizations" operating in Gaza.  The Israeli navy stopped a Panamanian-flagged civilian cargo ship and boarded the vessel, the IDF said.  The weapons found were identified as Syrian-manufactured surface-to-surface rockets, IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said.  It was an Iranian shipment headed for Gaza, the IDF said, citing intelligence.
(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

Khaled Meshal said:  Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and true for the Liberation of Palestine road, and the restoration of all the rights, and with it, of course, all forms of political, diplomatic, media and the public and legal struggle; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle, and summon the strength factors have.
'Issam 'Adwan argued that:  Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

Don't be such a nerd.  In almost nearly 95% of all criminal cases that go to trial, just like you plead the innocence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), so it is the case that most traditional criminals plead innocent. 

With the exception of items 1g, and 1h, there is little doubt that an example can be cited for all the others.  There is virtually no question that the HoAP have been, for some time, in violation of Security Council Resolution S/RES/1373 (2001).  And that Israel, as well as all other states, are called upon to implement (by UNSC Resolution 1269) fully the international anti-terrorist conventions (A/RES/49/60) to which they are parties, encourages all States to consider as a matter of priority adhering to those to which they are not parties, and encourages also the speedy adoption of the pending conventions;





P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what it says, in other words "it goes without saying that it is right".     Just because you don't believe that Israel has the right to defend against acts of war and terrorist attacks does not mean international law gives them that right. As you say you believe the Earth is flat, when the rest of the world know it is an imperfect ovoid.
> ...



Right on.  But we sure have plenty of documentation on Palestinian terrorists dedicated to annihilate Israel.[/QUOTE]
Is name calling all you have?

Sad.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands.  This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Oh come-on now Paul.  that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:
> 
> ...


Is name calling all you have?

Sad.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands.  This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?

You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.


----------



## Phoenall (May 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Calling a TERRORIST a TERRORIST is not name calling. We know you don't see the targeting of children and civilians with weapons of terror as terrorism but unfortunately it is. And it also a fact that hamas is a proven terrorist organisation no matter how legitimate they see themselves.


----------



## Phoenall (May 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands.  This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?

You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.[/QUOTE]




 BECAUSE DEFENDING AGAINST TERRORISM IS NOT A CRIME.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 20, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Oh come-on now Paul.  that is a legitimate tag for the Hostile Arab Palestinians which have an extended history pertaining to the conduct of:
> 
> ...


Is name calling all you have?

Sad.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands.  This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


Thank you for documented facts.  And these are the people who want Israel to negotiate peace with them.


----------



## aris2chat (May 20, 2015)

This is what Israel deals with

Nazi flag flies high over West Bank mosque VIDEO - Wilmington Conservative Examiner.com


----------



## aris2chat (May 20, 2015)

Israel silent while Hamas digs tunnels - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

Peace with whom?


----------



## MJB12741 (May 20, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Israel silent while Hamas digs tunnels - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East
> 
> Peace with whom?



Want peace from Palestinians?  Look to Jordan's Black September.  History has proven king Hussein was right.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## aris2chat (May 20, 2015)

Palestinian hits two Israel police with car and a third policeman shoots the drive dead in Jerusalem.  Hamas is calling it an execution.
They wanted the drive to be arrested and get a four year degree in jail?
Israel has four passes for palestinians from the WB to enter Israel for work and nearly three thousand enter from gaza for medical care in Israeli hospitals.
Israel is not the stumbling block to peace.  Palestinians attitude of hate is.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

The insinuation that the description of "terrorist" is somehow unfair or inaccurate is merely an attempt to suggest, in a reverse manner, that the it is totally proper for the HoAP to engage in Jihadist and Fedayeen (Islamic Extremism) in the pursuit of their political agenda and to intimidate the lawfully establish State of Israel into acquiescing to HoAP demands.  This is, in itself a variation on the theme of prohibited by A/RES/2/110 which prohibits forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?

You look biased and one sided when you only do the Palestinian thing.[/QUOTE]

Great point.  Just look what those Zionists have done to the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concerssions so the Palestinians can remain in Israel.  Face it you Zionists, not even once has Israel tried to help free them back to their indigenous homelands.  Shame on you people for that.


----------



## RoccoR (May 21, 2015)

MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,

In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims.  In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.

In the 20th Century, the more civilized nations of the world have attempted to intervene in these unsuccessful conflicts that have started as minor squabbles and evolved into Regional conflicts; interventions that usually have negative or imperfect outcomes.  In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the hostilities were almost like spontaneous ignition --- a type of cultural conflict that occurs by itself _(exothermic internal reactions of mixing volatile elements and conditions)_; followed by a gradual development until a thermal runaway occurs _(on both sides Arab and Jewish)_ which rapidly accelerates to high political confrontation, --- and zoom --- a war starts.  They have been locked in conflict for so long that they cannot even agree on the triggering event.  Like any fire _(cultural feud)_, the point of origin is often hard to pinpoint.  Clearly, the Jewish and the Muslims do not mix well in the Mediterranean climate.

Where both sides innocent at all times? No --- clearly not so.  There were uncontrolled hot heads on both sides.  But the accusations are not being soundly addressed. 



MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > So, when are you going to give us a list of Israel's crimes?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In the case of the Israelis (I'm accused of not mentioning the "Israeli Crimes"), my perspective is different.  And that is because a clear and concise accusation is seldom made.  But Since the point was raised (supra P F Tinmore) and seconded (supra by MJB'), I thought I would attempt to address them (one-by-one).  In the absence of a member accusation, I used the "LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL" found by the search of that same name - post by _*"ItisApartheid.Org"*_:


*ISRAELI OCCUPATION IS ILLEGAL: *Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 2(4) & 51 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 1 (1970). Israeli Actions: It is illegal under international law to acquire land by force: Israel annexed land occupied by force during 1948 and 1967 wars (lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan) ILRC article. Military action and occupations are legal only if they are for self-defense, or to directly benefit the native population. But studies show Israel is not just defending itself as it develops de-facto annexation with its settlements and separation barrier on occupied land, as it takes over most of the occupied territories (over 70%) and its natural resources for its own use and economic benefit, at the expense of the native population. ILRC article on why the Occupation is illegal.
Israel did not occupy any territory under Arab sovereignty in 1948.  It accepted the offering under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in the establishment of a "Jewish State."  Thus, it is not a Violation of Article 2(4) & 51 (1945). 
Israel did not take the territory by force, rather it defended its right of self-determination and the accepted offering by the General Assembly, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab Forces _(Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - Arab High Committee's Holy War Army - volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Sudan)_ on the day of Independence.
The conflict between Israel and the Coalition of Arab Forces ended in a UN negotiated ceasefire and Armistice --- with Armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States (the major waring parties) in 1949; with Armistice Lines forged along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).  In certain areas, the FEBA exceeded the "lands other than those given by the UN 1947-48 partition plan."  These territories did not come under the control of Israel by an act of aggression on the part of Israel, but rather, were lost to Israel through an act of aggression on the part of the Coalition of Arab Forces.  Chapter I, Article 2(4) stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
Israel was defending its rights to Independence and its territorial integrity from the use of force by the Coalition of Arab Forces; not the other way around.
The member nation fostering the Coalition of Arab Forces were member nations of the UN and subject to the charter; where as Israel was not yet a mamber of the UN and not subject to the Charter. 
For achieving the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950.  He served as assistant to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and thereafter as the principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission. In 1948, was appointed by the UN to mediate the conflict; after the  Count Bernadotte was assassinated.  The UN Security Council was intimately involved with the Armistice Negotiations on the Island of Rhodes.  The Armistice Lines, and the territory included, were negotiated and approved by the all four major parties to the conflict.  Israel was not in violation of any Charter, Treaty, Resolution or international law.


Relative to the 1967 War (AKA: The Six-Day War), The 1967 War did not start in the Sinai _(while all the events are connected)_, the critical events that trigger the renewed opening of Hostilities, revolved around:
Between January and April 1967:  63 Arab attacks _(Syrian tank fire, mines, more than 200 mortar shells, Palestinian terror attacks)_ heighten anxiety in Israel.
16-19 May 1967:  Egypt moves 100,000 troops into the Sinai, demands ALL United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw.
22 May 1967:  Egypt commits an Act of War; Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.   The Egyptian government asserted that because of a continuing state of war between Egypt and Israel, Egypt was entitled to take measures to prevent the passage of belligerent ships.  The Egyptian government argued that the *Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement had not legally ended the state of war* between the two nations.  Thus by blockading the Strait of Tiran to the Freedom of Navigation by Israeli shipping, Egypt essentially reopened hostilities.  Under customary international law, a body of water with the geography of the Gulf of Aqaba is non-territorial.   International law recognizes a gulf bordered by more than one littoral state as being part of the high seas (international waters).  Ships from Elath and Aqaba has freedom of navigation through the Straits for more than 2000 years.
*NOTE: * The Gulf of Aqaba, bordered by the states of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is approximately 100 miles in length. Its width varies from three miles at the narrowest point to seventeen miles at the widest point. The only navigable entrance to the Gulf is the Strait of Tiran, which is located at the southern tip of the Gulf, between Tiran Island and the Sinai Peninsula. Two ports - Elath (Israel) and Aqaba (Oordan) - are located at the northern tip of the Gulf.  *Egypt has no commercial shipping ports in the Gulf.  *The blockade was purposefully done to provoke the conflict, after having pre-positioned the Egyptian Army in the Sinai.  At the time of the 1967 War Field Marshal Abdul Hakim Amir had deployed a force of four infantry divisions, one armored division and a Mechanized division and an additional armored task force (4 reinforced Armor Battalions) in the Sinai.

At the time of the 1967 War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory.  The 1967 War was not an engagement with a Palestinian sovereignty, but with Jordan which became involved as a consequence of a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. 
The Gaza Strip was a military governorship and occupied by Egyptian Forces.  It was not sovereign Palestine.
Since the Arab States agreed that the 1948-49 Armistice Arrangements did not end the 1948 War, in which the Coalition of Arab Forces were the aggressor, and since Egypt closed the shipping lane through the Strait of Tiran, Israel is not the aggressor in the 1967 War.



*ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON OCCUPIED LAND:* Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 49(6) (1949). It is illegal to colonize occupied land or transfer non-indigenous population to that land. Israeli Actions: Immediately following the 1967 war, Israel began building Israeli civilian settlements on Palestinian lands, eventually building over 200 settlements throughout the occupied territories, and settling over 450,000 Israeli civilians in them, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians from their own legally owned lands. In addition, Israeli citizens live in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. ILRC article.
Is it really a violation?  What does the Geneva Convention actually say?
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Deportations, transfers, evacuations
ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] 








Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the *Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.* Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


This 1949 GCIV Protection was to prevent, in the future, any such action as the Jewish endured in the forced transfers to concentration camps.  It had nothing to do with settlements by migrating settlers.
Hostilities between the HoAP and the Occupation Forces have not ceased.  Both halves of the Unity Government still cling to the belief that Jihad is the solution and that the establishment of Israel is illegal.
The Oslo Accords between the Israeli Government and the Arab League recognized sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, established Areas "A" "B" and "C" which permitted Israel to allow settlers into Area "C" territory.
*NOTE:*  I would be remiss if I did not mention that Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”.  However, it is important to point-out that the intent by the Israeli is not to alter the "demographic composition."



*ILLEGAL ISRAELI PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING:* Laws Violated: Forbidding civilian populations the right to return to their homes following the end of armed conflict is in direct violation of international law and UN resolutions. Geneva Convention IV, Articles 45, 46 & 49 (1949), UN resolutions 194 (III) (General Assembly; 1948) & 237 (Security Council; 1967). Israeli Actions: Since 1910, in different ways, the Zionists and then Israel have taken Palestinian lands, forced native populations from their land, and then refused the Palestinian landowners or tenants’ residency or employment on them. Following fighting in 1948 and then again in 1967, Palestinian civilians who wished to return to their homes in Israel and the Occupied Territories were forbidden re-entry (“right of return”), confining them to increasingly smaller areas of Israel and Occupied Territories. The Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinians’ right to return to their homes. See the ILRC article on Right of Return and ILRC article on Ethnic Cleansing.
There is no treaty that ends the conflict between the State of Israel and the HoAP either in the Gaza government or the West Bank Government.  Again, by the standards set by the HAMAS and Fatah halves of the government, Israel has no right to exist anywhere south of Lebanon and north of the Sinai ---  from the Jordan River to the Sea.  This is Palestine, exclusively for the Palestinians.  The Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice.   Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine.
Prior to 1948 there was no Israel.  Therefore, the idea that Israel took part in some sort of Ethnic Cleansing, prior to 1948 with the establishment of the Jewish States is impossible.  As stated in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, the biggest challenge for legal scholars when dealing with the term of ethnic cleansing is the fact that “it consists of a combination of a number of war crimes."  Legal theory has also placed ethnic cleansing among crimes against humanity and has declared it a form of genocide, so to this end there is still eternal controversy.
For the purpose of this Statute (Part II - Article 6 - ICC Rome Statutes), "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:




(a)  Killing members of the group;
(b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​
*ISRAELI APARTHEID SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL: *Laws Violated: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1976). Link to our fact sheets on Israeli Apartheid. Israeli Actions: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid. ILRC article. Israel’s society-wide system of discrimination and isolation of the Palestinian people within Israel, and its system of exploitation, oppression and isolation in the occupied territories, fits exactly the official, legal UN definition of apartheid, which is considered to be a crime against humanity. The practice of passing laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people, embodies the UN definition of apartheid, which is giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on criteria like what religion they are. Another example is in 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with some exceptions). The reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority family unification. The racist nature is evident in that only Palestinians (no other ethnic groups) are not forbidden to live in Israel after marrying an Israeli. ILRC article. General article. Amnesty International argues that this law violates fundamental principles of equity, human dignity and personal freedom enshrined in basic law as well as the rights of the child to live with both parents and other fundamental rights enshrined in human rights treaties in which Israel is a signer.
"The crime of apartheid" means (Part II - Article 7 - ICC Rome Statutes) inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. 
There is no oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.  Israel is a multiracial and multicultural society to a much greater extent than the State of Palestine.  And Israel has within it every racial group that the State of Palestine has; greater cultural and racial diversity.
Israel security countermeasure are instituted to protect or maintaining a regime within the State of Palestine.  All security countermeasures and the quarantine of Palestinians are  to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and to maintain the security and safety for its citizenry against a regime that has dedicated itself to Jihad and the destruction of Israel as a State.


*MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (HR):*
Laws Violated: U.N. Charter, Article 1 (1945); Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations…, Principle 5 (1970)​
*COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ILLEGAL: *
Laws Violated: Geneva Conventions IV, Article 33 (1949); Geneva Conventions (Protocol I), Article 75(2d) (1977).​
*ILLEGAL MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF LOCAL LAWS: *
Laws Violated: Hague Regulations IV, Article 43 (1907).​
*SEPARATION BARRIER RULED ILLEGAL*
Laws Violated:  International Court of Justice of 2004, Advisory Opinion,​

Relative to Massive HR Violations, this is merely a grab bag for the Palestinians.  The Palestinians have hurt themselves many more times than the Israeli could do intentionally.  Since there is no specific allegation here, there is no real response to be made.  The world in general understands that this is a belligerent occupation of a parasitic failed government, unable to meet Article 22 (LoN Covenant) requirements to be able to stand on their own, and lead by a conglomeration of Jihadist and Fedayeen that are dedicated to disrupting regional security.  Even the adjacent Arab nations don't really want to help them and would prefer that Israel maintain the quarantine.
There is no Collective Punishment.  Israel is not standing up Arab Palestinian against the wall and shooting them on mass; or punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
The transformation of local laws would have transferred any way.  At the time of the original occupation, the territory was sovereign Jordanian territory.  When it became territory occupied by Israel, the local laws were Jordanian.  In July 1988, Jordan relinquished sovereignty; and the territory was orphaned (nor legitimate government --- not Palestinian and not Jordanian); by UN Security Council Mandate and under the Geneva Convention the governance fell upon the Occupation Power.  The only law at that point was what was enforced by the Occupying Power.
Relative to the Separation Barrier --- as P F Tinmore so often reminds us all, the Armistice Line between Israel and the State of Palestine is NOT a border.  The State of Palestine has not treaty in respect to borders.  As P F Tinmore often asks, where is the treaty or other legal instrument that delineates the border of Palestine?  The principle purpose of the Security Barrier is to maintain the security and safety of the citizens of Israel from those hostile elements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip side of the Barriers, which would (given the opportunity) do the Israelis harm.  So strong is the need for the Hostile Arab Palestine that the dig tunnels to defeat the purpose of the barriers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq (May 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


But it was the Zionists that were the TERRORISTS,not the Palestinians you fool.....and the Jewish Zionists committed War Crimes to displace the Palestinians..........what did the Palestinians ever do to you????? Funny how you are So Mute about the Nazis,Russians and Catholics who tried to Eliminate the Jewish people........You have treated the Palestinians as you were treated by the Nazis,Russians and Catholics......and you now carry Collective Guilt for your Actions,plus the reason the World have such a Low Opinion of You.


----------



## Phoenall (May 21, 2015)

theliq said:


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







 Still waiting for your proof of this, waiting for the list of non partisan nations that declare Zionists to be terrorists. When did these alleged war crimes take place then, and what court with the right authority has charged Israel with the crimes.   The Palestinians and their fellow muslims destroyed one Christmas for me and my family by mass murdering 300 innocents flying home for Christmas in 1984.

 You seem to have this fixation that I am a Jew, well you are so far of the mark as to be in another universe. I treat the Palestinians with the hate and disdain they deserve after targeting children to force the Jews to leave their country. Just as the muslims in Britain also target the children here to force the British to give in to their demands.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> In any conflict that has lasted as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict, there will be claims and counter-claims.  In the end, the terminator is usually a war between the belligerents that settles the matter.
> 
> ...


Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:

"(a) The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories.

"Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:

"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race."

"(b) The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone.

"Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its raison d'être.

"The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges." 63/ - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​
You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Yes, yes yes!  Let us "start at the beginning."  In the beginning JEWS WERE INDIGENOUS PALESTINIANS.  Not a single Muslim Palestinian squatter  even existed among them in the beginning to steal Israel's land as they are now doing.


----------



## Phoenall (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






1)  No it didn't as that did not exist at that time, and the LoN as the sovereign owners of Palestine had every right to dispose of the land as they saw fit. If you believe they didn't then none of the nations created under the Mandates have any validity

2)  The covenant was upheld when the LoN granted the arab Palestinians their share of Palestine and called it trans Jordan. As history has reminded everyone the arab muslims have never been ready for self determination so they don't deserve a nation alongside Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

3)  No the Mcmahon letters that were the precursor to the Balfour Declaration very clearly set out the terms and they included part of the Ottoman Empire be set aside and not granted to the arab muslims. This section is what is today Jordan and Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called *"ItisApartheid.Org"*; with the *List of Israeli Violations**.*  So, you want to start at a different place.  That is OK with me.  Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.   The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body _(an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself)_ for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

I was trying to limit my reply to the parameters of your comment in Posting #82 with regards to "Israeli Crimes."  Israeli crimes cannot truly exist prior to mid-night 14/15 May 1948.   But I did follow your logic and have no problem with it.  It merely expands my commentary.



P F Tinmore said:


> Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
> 
> "The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Before I rant on the timeline, and the interpretation of certain events, again I would be remiss if I did not mention the first Palestine Arab Congress (PAC)_(AKA: Arab National Congress)_ _(27 January to 10 February 1919)_, the outcomes of which are not in the on-line archive of the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) listing. _(I'm sure they have it, I just don't see it in the white or dark side of the net.)  _The importance of the PAC is that it concluded in time to make the Paris Peace Conference.  The PAC did submit it through quasi- Diplomatic channels by Cable to the Paris Peace Conference.  I can only speculate why it was not presented at the same time as the Jewish Presentation _(or maybe it was and just was not taken seriously)_.  In any event --- you can hardly find any reference to the PAC Cable relative to the Paris Peace Conference, yet quite clearly see the Jewish presentation.  The Paris Peace Conference was heavily influenced by the presence of the BIG FOUR:

President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson;  
Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George; 
Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau;  
Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.
The BIG FOUR were not the only Principle Allied Powers, but they were the backbone behind the leadership of the Allied Powers and the Council for the League of Nations.  And that may be the key behind the reason the PAC Cable was so easily dismissed.  The PAC _(viewed as composed of characters that were less then helpful to the allies during the war)_ send what was interpreted as "demands" to the Allied Powers.  Included in these demands were items that simply could not be considered:

That the Allied Powers renounce the Balfour Declaration. 
The recognition of a Regional "Arab Union."
The independence of a greater Syria that would include the Mandate for Palestine.
This was, of course, impossible as it would abrogate the Sykes-Picot Accords and interfere with the promises made to Arab-Bedouin Princes that did provide active combat assistance to the Allied Powers during the War.  Additionally, the Arab-Ottoman included a demand that All foreign treaties _(meaning those treaties concluded by the Allied Powers)_ affecting the entire region were to be set aside and voided.  This was framed as if the PAC had been victorious in the War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Army of the Central Powers.  One can only imagine what the BIG FOUR must have thought when reviewing the PAC Demands (no wonder the Arabs sent it by cable).  The entire purpose of The *Paris Peace Conference* was to allow the Allied victors to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers; not to acquiesce to the PAC.

The important sequence of events that are relevant to the challenge that: --- --- The Mandate for Palestine was invalid:  (Short Answer:  It was not.)

08/10/1922 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



The Palestine Order in Council
Definition of boundaries, formation of districts,
Grant of pardon & Remission of fines,
Judicial and Legislative Authority  --- creation of Ordinances,
Nationality, Citizenship, voting and elections, etc.

07/24/1922 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Mandate for Palestine
Approved by LoN
Political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, 
Development of self-governing institutions,
Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.
Establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine. 

04/25/1920 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (1) Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates ---- (2) San Remo Convention
The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

04/28/1919 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. 

02/03/1919 
	
Paris peace conference
Five individual Treaties are made: 
A. Each treaty is named for districts around Paris. 
B. Germany = Versailles 
C. Austria = St. Germain 
D. Hungary = Trianon 
E. Bulgaria = Neuilly 






 F. Ottoman Empire = Sevres: 08/10/1920 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and the Associate Powers and Turkey 


01/03/1919 
	
Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
Arabs and the Jewish people working out the consummation of their national aspirations,
Established and maintained in their respective territories. 

11/02/1917 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Balfour Declaration
Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people 

05/16/1916 
	
Sykes-Picot Agreement
That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. 

The Balfour Declaration, while not a specific topic, was discussed in the reference frame of "national aspirations" of both the Arab and the Jewish in what culminated into a Arab-Jewish Treaty know as the Faisal (Arab)-Weizmann (Jewish) Agreement.  The first official Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration comes with the feeder arrangements into the Paris Peace Agreement, in that same year (JAN) 1919; just over a month later --- February 1919.  As the Ottoman Empire had unconditionally surrendered 
[Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)], the matter was then placed in the hands of the Allied Powers. 

It was for the BIG FOUR and the Allied Powers to decide what the best course of action was to take; and not the PAC.  The decision on the course of action to take relative to the Jewish Homeland Issue and Palestine, were essentially made before the Covenant.  The Mandate was approved by the Council of the League of Nations.  It did not require review and approval of the PAC.  The Actions taken by the Mandatory, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, were reported to and reviewed by the Council.  The Council had the authority to alter or amend the Mandate, or to approve such changes to the course of action as they may find necessary.  The Mandate was not a stone table that could not be altered.  Remembering that in the beginning, the intent was to establish a Jewish National Home.  The protection to the former enemy indigenous population was in the area of civil and religious rights --- nothing more.  At that time, they had not other special protections that were expressly articulated.  The establishment of the Jewish National Home (a concept) was a principle goal expressly mandated.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration 
The San Remo Convention approved the outline to the Mandate.  It was approved by the Council of the League of Nations.  That makes it valid.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
The spirit and intent of the Article 22 Clauses is defined by the authors and NOT the PAC or and derivative Arab organization.  There is no specific reference to Palestine in Article 22.  It is more likely that if there was a specific terrirtory in mind -- it would have been Trans-Jordan, a carve-out and set aside for the promises made the the Bedouin Chiefs. 

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.
The pledges made to the Arab Chiefs were (eventually) engaged and rendered in the form of two Kingdoms that because independent.  There was not other specific promises made to the Arabs.  Prince Faisal and Prince Abdullah each received their independent Kingdoms as promised.  What pledges were made --- were made to the Arabs on the side of the allies.  NOT Arabs like:

*President  All Palestine Government*
Hajj Amin al-Husseini  A Commission Officer in the Ottoman Army​*Prime Minister  All Palestine Government*
Ahmed Hilmi Pasha  A General Officer in the Ottoman Army​
*(PERSONALLY)*

I think the Arab and the PAC did not do the Palestinian Arab any good in the very beginning by attempting to make demands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...




"include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions."

Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called *"ItisApartheid.Org"*; with the *List of Israeli Violations**.*  So, you want to start at a different place.  That is OK with me.  Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.   The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body _(an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself)_ for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.
> 
> ...



That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.​
*Of course that is not true.*

Following rejection by the Ottoman authorities of his ideas, Herzl approached the British, German, Belgian and Italian Governments and such far-flung locations as Cyprus, East Africa and the Congo were considered, but did not materialize. The creation of a Jewish State in Palestine became the avowed aim of zionism, zealously pressed by Dr. Chaim Weizmann when he came to head the movement.  - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​
The Zionists were all over the place trying to sell their colonial project.

Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization, financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called *"ItisApartheid.Org"*; with the *List of Israeli Violations**.*  So, you want to start at a different place.  That is OK with me.  Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.   The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body _(an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself)_ for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.
> 
> ...


The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority;* the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes *--- a public body _(an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself)_ for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.​
Like I say, the Jewish Agency was part of the Mandate. After the mandate folded the Jewish Agency had no legitimacy in Palestine.


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



After the mandate left, Israel was created. The agency had nothing to do with Palestine.


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



"The Zionists were all over the place trying to sell their colonial project"

This 'colonial project' exists only in the minds of pro Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called *"ItisApartheid.Org"*; with the *List of Israeli Violations**.*  So, you want to start at a different place.  That is OK with me.  Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.   The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body _(an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself)_ for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.
> 
> ...


An appendix to the memorandum notes:


"The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which His Majesty's Government have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs."

Professor Arnold J. Toynbee, who dealt with the Palestine question as a member of the British Foreign Office at the time of the Peace Conference, wrote in 1968:


"... as I interpret the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, Palestine had not been excepted by the British Government from the area in which they had pledged themselves to King Hussein to recognize and support Arab independence. The Palestinian Arabs could therefore reasonably assume that Britain was pledged to prepare Palestine for becoming an independent Arab state." 8/

These acknowledgements that *the British Government had not possessed the right "to dispose of Palestine"* appeared decades after the commitments to the Arabs not only had been infringed by the Sykes-Picot agreement but, *in disregard of the inherent rights and the wishes of the Palestinian people,...* - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

toastman said:


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


The Zionist Organization was to use the assurances for "a national home for the Jewish people" *to press its plans for the colonization of Palestine* on the basis of the Balfour Declaration and its implementation through the League of Nations Mandates System. The Palestinian people were to resist these efforts, since their fundamental political right to self-determination had been denied, and* their land was to become the object of colonization from abroad* during the period it was under a League of Nations Mandate.  - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What colonization? Israel declared independence on the land allocated to her in the partition plan, the SAME WAY the so called 'Palestinians' did so in 1988.

You're making no sense


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Israeli say so.


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Israeli say so ? What's wrong with you ?
Do you have any idea how many times you asked me for a link for the same thing. I have provided links for you you 10000 times, yet you refuse to admit you're  wrong.

Just the other day, you said that the partition plan did not allocate land. I proceeded to provide you with about 15 links that said otherwise.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

toastman said:


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


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

Here is yet ANOTHER link for you Tinmore:

"In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181,"

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Rocco and I have both provided you with links for everything said in my post. You keep using the same trick, but it doesn't work on me.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> Here is yet ANOTHER link for you Tinmore:
> 
> "In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181,"
> 
> United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


From your link.

On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution *recommending* the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]

*The partition plan was not implemented.*[11]


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Which part of "We have provided you with links many many times' do you not understand ?

Which specific part of my post do you need a link for ?


----------



## toastman (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Here is yet ANOTHER link for you Tinmore:
> ...



In 1947 it wasn't, no.

But:

*This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947*, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine,

Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of Independence

http://www.globalresearch.ca/palestine-independence-day-24-years-ago-november-15-1988/5311883


----------



## Hossfly (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Here's yer links Tinmore.



 



​

​


----------



## RoccoR (May 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The "CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978" is a study that is more than 30 years after the fact and a summation of events.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I'll say it once more:  the *official* determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel. 

The *Jewish People/Immigrants* exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; 
The *Jewish Agency* was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body _(an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself)_ for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration. 
The *State of Israel* had not been constituted yet.
All the various parties _(Arab - Jewish - Royals - Belligerents)_ to the "Question on Palestine" play politics and lobby in an attempt to influence decisions made by the sovereigns, the representatives of the Allied Powers/Central Powers, member sitting on the League Council, and _(of course)_ the Mandatory Governments.  This does not mean that the lobbyist _(Arab or Jewish)_ has any kind of decision making authority.  Most lobbyist have, in their arsenal, public-relations campaigns to influence public opinion; and develop access to influential official to present their complex proposals.  Prince Faisal _(Allied Arabs)_, Chaim Weizmann _(Jewish Representative)_, Aref al-Dajani _(Palestine Arab Congress)_ all used various lobbying techniques to promote their political agenda.

The fact that the Theodor Herzl lobbied the Jewish position with all levels doesn't mean he did anything different from the other politicos or had more influence.  He might have been more successful.  Or, the decision maker may have already made their decision.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really make me laugh.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Here is yet ANOTHER link for you Tinmore:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The academic and unofficial interpretation by Dr Itzhak Galnoor PhD (1995) _(a political science Professor at the Hebrew University, associated with the Jerusalem "Van Leer Institute" Think Tank)_  [_The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement_. SUNY Press. pp. 289–. ISBN 978-0-7914-2193-2. Retrieved 3 July2012] is not the "official" interpretation.  The "Official" UN Interpretation was made by a Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau Release.



			
				THE UN PALESTINE COMMISSION 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



There are many academicians and pro-Palestinians that believe that the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) required the agreement by BOTH the Arab's and the Jewish had to accept.  But the Resolution is quite clear. 



			
				PART - I Future Constitution of Palestine --- A/RES/181 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.



The confusion comes in --- when people interpret "implemented" to mean something that is not stated.  The "implementation" refers to that party that "accepts" _*(the either part)*_.  In that the Resolution is an "Offer and Acceptance" issued independently to both parties.  The acceptance is mutual exclusive to the option taken by the other party.  One party cannot withhold the right of self-determination to the other party merely by their rejection.  The "rejection" is a negative form of self-determination.  

But make no mistake.  In terms of the UN, the 1947 Resolution was active in 1947 when the Israelis accepted, in 1948 when the Israelis Declared Independence, in 1988 when the Palestinians Declared Independence, and in 2012 when the status of the State of Palestine was upgraded.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Your timeline is at fault again.



P F Tinmore said:


> An appendix to the memorandum notes:
> 
> 
> "The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which His Majesty's Government have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs."
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence took place that between mid-1915 and early 1916.  Remember, as I said before, the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, was the King of the Hashemite Bedouins; NOT the Arab Palestinians.  (Two different groups of Arab.)  What ever was the impression the Sharif of Mecca might have been given, it is mutually exclusive to what the Arab Palestinians (not aligned with Allied Forces) might have had expected.

It is also important to note that the January 1916 end to the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence comes four months before the Sykes-Picot Agreement and nearly two-years before the Balfour Declaration.

11/02/1917 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Balfour Declaration
Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

05/16/1916 
	
Sykes-Picot Agreement
That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

Whatever you may derive from the these little CEIRPP excerpts, in this case, the two sons of the Sharif of Mecca, received their kingdoms as promised.  The 1922 Article 25 in the Mandate for Palestine, partitions the territory west of the Jordan for Emir Abdullah and the future Kingdom --- Transjordan with an Anglo-Trans-Jordanian Treaty.   The Emir Faisal became King of Syria; and as a result of a political dispute _(related to the Sykes-Picot Treaty)_ Emir Faisal had to transfer his flag and became King of Iraq.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 22, 2015)

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important facts.

The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls *they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory outright*.

The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​
The right to territorial integrity, mentioned as a pre-existing Palestinian right in subsequent UN resolutions, was already implied in post WWI treaties. There are several other laws that back up the right to territorial integrity.

You yourself stated previously that the land was not up for grabs. You did not mention, however, whose land was not up for grabs.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important facts.
> 
> The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls *they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory outright*.
> 
> ...



Want peace?  Help us find some way to get Israel to provide some incentive to the surrounding Arab countries to grant the Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## RoccoR (May 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

So you say.  In 1918, the Ottoman Empire unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important facts.
> 
> The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls *they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory outright*.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is some confusion here.  The Allied Powers --- victorious over the Central Powers --- assumed control over the captured and occupied territory in question.  This is FACT --- no tap dancing and no word smithing:  the Allied Powers established the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (Middle East)(EOTA) in June 1918 extending Allied authority nearly everywhere in the Middle East.  What little that remained under the control of the Central Powers and the Ottoman Empire was demilitarized and demobilized with the signing the Unconditional Surrender (*Armistice of Mudros*) in October 1918.

No authority or rights of sovereignty went to any Arab entity.  In 1918, there were no rights to "territorial integrity!"  A country either had control or did not have control.  There was no "right to territorial integrity" and there were no UN resolutions that imply (in 1918) any such notion because their was no UN; in fact --- at the time the Ottoman Empire surrendered (30 October 1918), there was no League of Nations until 1919:

04/28/1919 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*League of Nations covenant* - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Even the universe has a point of origin.  What is the "point of origin" for this "pre-existing Palestinian right to territorial integrity?"

For as long as there have been countries and leaders of cultures and countries, there has been this concept of "territorial integrity."  Today, we have the concept of humanitarian intervention under *Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter* "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples."  The contemporary or more modern idea of "territorial integrity" began in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia _ (composed of the:  Treaty of Münster --- and --- Treaty of Osnabrück)_. which marked the end of the 30 Years War.  In this sense _(and particularly relevant to the "Question of Palestine")_ is the idea that saw the fall of Empires and the end to "nations as the personal possession" of their monarchs and the beginning of respect for the "territorial integrity of other nations."  It is even more important to understand that Westphalia Peace DID NOT see an end to imperial expansion or the development of the complex Hegemonies; especially since the European nations applied one rule to themselves and another to the peoples whom they encountered outside of Europe over which they spread their imperial umbrella or the parasol of their Hegemony.

The three basic principles of the Westphalia System _(a pure West Powers concept)_ ---- and ---- the original concept behind the right of self-determination were:

The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
The principle of (legal) equality between states.
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.
Neither of the dual component treaties of the Westphalia Compact even approach the idea of sovereignty as a "right" --- but rather as an outcome.  Even through the very last decade of the 20th Century, the political position of the NATO Alliance wast that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order." _(NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, 1998)_  At the opening of the 21st Century, the Westphalia Compact _(again the pre-existing right of which you speak)_ was summarized as "obsolete."   "The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions."  _(German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Humboldt Speech 2000)_

To go back to your original implication that the Mandatory did NOT have the authority to partition and make sovereign the territory of Palestine, as determined by the original Allied Powers, is incredibly off the track.  Neither the Independence of Jordan (1946) nor the Partition Plan of the remainder (1947) were outside the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League _(in this case the successor the UN)_, or outside the intent defined by the Council of the League of Nations _(in this case the successor the UN)_.  The 1946 recognition by the UK of the Sovereignty of Jordan was well within the the Article 22 parameters of a Certain Communities" and the recognition of such a community to stand alone.  The 1947 Partition Plan was not a solution developed by the Mandatory, but a solution developed by the General Assembly _(the successor to the League of Nations)_.  The Arabs of the region to which the Mandate applied, have not evidence to support the claim that they have some pre-existing right to sovereignty over the entirety of the landscape.  They have only the right to self determination over the landscape which they can control _(which is almost nothing)_.  

REMEMBER:  The backbone behind the Westphalia System, the League of Nations Covenant, the UN Charter, and the regional treaties is the establishment of peace and security.  Absent any support by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to achieve that objective (Regional Peace and Mutual Security) there exists no reason for other nations to go to war to support a failed state _(Islamic Resistance Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine)_ over a prosperous and economically developing state _(Establish Jewish State of Israel)_.

Whether you state at the turn of the 20th Century, or the turn of the 21st Century, the incitement to violence was then and is now the Hostile Arab Palestinian that is parasitic to the region.  They have not demonstrated their ability to --- at any time --- they are able to stand alone.  And original Article 22 requirement for indiependence.  And the very last thing the region needs is another unrestricted failed state of radical Islamist running loose.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> So you say.  In 1918, the Ottoman Empire unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.
> 
> ...


Your facts seem to be basically correct. However, you draw your conclusions be looking at the facts through Israel colored glasses.

They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.


----------



## toastman (May 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Can you elaborate on that? What did he say that was bias.?


----------



## RoccoR (May 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Everything that was done, was done in the light of day.  It was done pursuant to the Council of the League of Nations and later, the General Assembly.



P F Tinmore said:


> They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.


*(COMMENT)*

In every major decision, there will be dissenting views and opinions.    Annexation was not required because there was never an intent to extend citizenship or permanent soverty over the territories.  

A common misunderstanding is the difference between a "Mandate" and a "Trusteeship."  They are not one in the same.

A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League.
The _Palestine_ Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".   *SOURCE:* Series of League of Nations Publications  VI.A. MANDATE SYSTEM 1945. VI.A. 1​
Trusteeship was designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence.
At the end of WWII and with the institution of the UN as the Successor to the League of Nations, there were a dozen Mandates that converted to Trusteeships.  Palestine was one of those Mandates _(less Trans-Jordan which was being granted Independence under the_ Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom and His Highness the Amir of Transjordan. _Came into force on 17 June 1946, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 6, pp 143–175)_.  

--- Article 1 --- 
His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​
Unfortunately, there was no pledge to the Arab Palestinian that they would be granted _(in the sense that a power would give them)_ independence.  The promise was made to the Sharif of Mecca and King of the Hejaz, an allied partner opposing the Ottoman Empire and the Central Powers.

The UN accepted the responsibility of the Mandate _(designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917 --- Jewish national home, as laid down in the Mandate, and the development of self-governing institutions)_.  The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, were --- in fact --- as much a part of the inhabitants of these territories, as the Arab Palestinian --- having immigrated, established permanent residence, and assumed the role in establishment of the Jewish National Home.  The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, encouraged by the Mandate, were no less afforded the same rights of self-determination as any other culture; and acquisition of Palestinian Article 7 citizenship by taking-up permanent residence in Palestine _(afforded all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home)_.  In the eyes of the Allied Powers --- the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust --- applied as much to the Jewish Settlers as encouraged Immigrants as it did to the Arab indigenous population formerly managed under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

*(HELD IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE UNTIL THEY COULD STAND ALONE)*

The State of Palestine, a _de jure_ sovereign state of which independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, has not been able to establish a government that can remotely appear as one which can transition from one leadership administration to the next; even under its own rules.  the dysfunctional and often amateurish Palestinian leadership has been a problem for years, and must be overcome for meaningful peacemaking progress to occur.  The European Union is the principle financial donor to Palestine. 

*Behind the numbers: Cairo donor conference*
Following the announcement of the pledges at the Conference on Palestine: Reconstructing Gaza in Cairo, speculation about the Palestinian government of national consensus, ranging from corruption to limiting support to Gaza, has appeared in articles and on social media. Some articles went so far as to claim that the funds raised at the conference in Cairo will be diverted to the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s budget. However, this speculation could not be further from the truth.

Summary⎙ Print The financial commitments announced by donors at the Cairo conference and allocated to the Gaza Strip will not be diverted to the PA and the West Bank, as some media outlets have claimed.
Author Dana ErekatPosted October 28, 2014
While it is true that only about half of the amount announced at the donors conference in Cairo is specifically for Gaza, the other half will not be diverted to the West Bank.

To understand the story behind the numbers, one must first grasp the complexities of aid management in Palestine. There are over 70 countries and agencies that provide support to Palestine on an annual basis. While some countries project their support in financial years, others do so in their own fiscal years. While some donors project up to four-year commitments, others project only one. However, in the interest of simplifying matters, donation commitments to Palestine can be divided into three categories:​

Budgetary support: These funds support recurrent budgetary expenditures such as salaries, health care and electrical bills. They include budgetary support to Gaza, which currently amounts to almost 50% of the budget.
Developmental support: These funds go to investment and technical assistance projects in various sectors, in both the West Bank and Gaza.
Humanitarian support: These funds go through various UN and non-governmental agencies, most prominently the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides services to Palestinian refugees worldwide.

The time between the commitment of funds and their disbursement may range anywhere from a few months to years. Distinguishing between commitments and disbursements and understanding how disbursements happen are critical to understanding the flow of funds in Palestine. The disbursements of the different commitments can come through a number of channels, including but not limited to the following:​

The Palestinian Ministry of Finance: The ministry has a number of mechanisms under its Central Treasury Account that channel both budgetary and developmental support. While all budgetary support goes through the Ministry of Finance, only about 25% of developmental support does.
Direct support to ministries: Payments are made directly to the ministries to implement projects.
UN agencies: Aid is channeled directly to UN agencies to implement their projects in accordance with each agency’s specialty. In Palestine, most UN agencies coordinate with the Palestinian government to identify priorities and areas of intervention. Funds go directly to these agencies for implementation.
NGOs and other implementing agencies: For the most part, there is little coordination with the government through this channel. Priorities and areas of intervention are not always aligned with national plans. Unfortunately, for the most part, the disconnect between the government and these agencies leaves little room for accountability.

Palestine does not meet  the criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Everything that was done, was done in the light of day.  It was done pursuant to the Council of the League of Nations and later, the General Assembly.
> 
> ...


There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan. They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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









AND ! ! !      weren't the arabs doing the same thing, and failing because they fought on the wrong side


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Which mandate are you referring to, as there were two in existence


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Only as an area on the map with no validity as a nation, unless you can find a link declaring Palestine a nation prior to 1988


----------



## RoccoR (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is your perspective.



P F Tinmore said:


> There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.
> 
> It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.


*(COMMENT)*

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points.  There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories _(surrendered by one sovereign to another)_ must be handled a certain way.  There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory.  Permanent sovereign control was not an objective. 

Transfer was never and issue.  Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates.  That was never an objective.  The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example).  But NOT by transfer.



P F Tinmore said:


> You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.


*(COMMENT)*

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.



P F Tinmore said:


> For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.


*(COMMENT)*

Maybe!  Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination _(albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs)_.  No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point.  However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People.  The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic).  The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory.  The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.


*(COMMENT)*

The occupied enemy Arab population _(not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz)_ was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories.  The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.



P F Tinmore said:


> Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.
> 
> Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.


*(COMMENT)*

This is, of course, your opinion.  Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them.  In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem._ (It did not cut and run as you suggest.)_  The outcome was the Partition Plan.  The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni _[killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence]_ and Hasan Salama.  Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by _Sicherheitsdienst_ (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini.  It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah.  In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [_establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians]_ Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
*SIDE NOTES:* 
In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is your perspective.
> 
> ...


Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​
You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence* in their own place.*

*Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine*

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.


----------



## toastman (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Israel is not in Palestine. That's absurd. Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza. IF anything, PAlestine is in Israel. Looks at a map, it's not so hard. 

Also, Palestine gained independence in 1988. Before that, Arabs did NOT HAVE SOVEREIGNTY over the land.


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






You don't even have the P  as Jordan is in Palestine as well. Read the original LoN Mandate document


----------



## RoccoR (May 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Just as an example, your first - two counter-point (Lebanon is in Lebanon --- Syria is in Syria) is truly over simplified.  When the Ottoman Empire surrendered, there were 5 provinces of Syria mandated to France that later became Lebanon.  But the entirety of the Mandate was, by San Remo Convention _[later the Article 3(1) of the Treaty of Lausanne]_, was delineated as Syria; including the administrative Ottoman districts alone the Mediterranean coast; as divided by the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  This actually conformed with the direct control exercised over the coastal parts of the Ottoman Vilayet of Aleppo and Vilayet of Beirut.  During WII, under the Vichy Government, General Henri Gouraud, French Army of the Levant _(High Commissioner for the French Mandate)_ established Greater Lebanon, the predecessor of the contemporarily Lebanon we know it today; selecting Beirut as the capital.  

The French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon was a League of Nations Mandate created at the end of World War I. When the Ottoman Empire was formally split up by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, it was decided that four of its territories in the Middle East should be League of Nations mandates temporarily governed by the United Kingdom and France on behalf of the League.

As previously surveyed by the French, the eastern side of the al-Bekka Valley became the border that formed a logical defensible boundary.  Like the Mandate for Palestine was partitioned by the British, so was the Mandate for Syria.

This is not so dissimilar to the Partition of the the Mandate for Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

Even this is a simplified version of events.  But I could write forever on this subject and the inability of the Arabs to look at the broader - big picture and put it all together.  I guess, in a way, that is why there are so many books written about it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!
> 
> ...


Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!​
It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that *the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories* and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that *sovereignty rested with the people* of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that *Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power,* be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes,* these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants* and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. * The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. * The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​


----------



## RoccoR (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I do not think you read my comments well.  While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations.  However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition.  In any event, annexation was never used as a means.



RoccoR said:


> Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either *established by treaty *(as in Jordan as an example) or through *self-determination* (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.



Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.
> 
> Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that *the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories* and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that *sovereignty rested with the people* of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:
> 
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

In most cases, "alienation" of the territory is limited to the authority of the Council or the UN Trusteeship.  In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased"  _(no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased)_.  The "alienation" _(immigration in this case)_ was authorized by the _(in that time, under existing authority) _in the form of Article 6 of the Mandate.

The British, as Mandatory, did not cede or lease any territory.  The Council and/or the UN, which have the controlling authority of the Mandates issued made the determination as to the disposition of the territories in question under:



			
				Treaty of Lausanne said:
			
		

> Part I, Section I, Territorial Clauses
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> ...





			
				Treaty of Lausanne said:
			
		

> Part I, Section 2, Special Provisions
> ARTICLE 27.
> 
> No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.
> ...


*(ADDITIONAL COMMENT)*

In addition tho the Arab Palestinian recognition of the Partition Plan --- General Assembly 181(II), in 2005 the DPR Issued a side note of some importantance:


			
				EXCERPT from the CEIRPP-DPR Information Note 2005 said:
			
		

> *International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People*
> 
> Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed annually. The *Day commemorates the adoption* *by the* General Assembly on 29 November 1947 of resolution 181 (II), *which provides for the partition of Palestine into two States.* The observance is held at United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna, and elsewhere. The event includes solemn meetings at which statements on the question of Palestine are made by high-level officials of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations and representatives of the international network of NGOs. It also usually includes, at Headquarters, the display of a Palestinian exhibit, film screenings and other activities. At other locations, various activities are organized by governmental bodies and NGOs in cooperation with United Nations Information Centres around the world.
> - See more at: CEIRPP DPR - Information note 2005 12 December 2005



However you may interpret the excerpts cited in The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978, there is a recognition site, in the 21st Century concerning the validity of the Partition Plan. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq (May 24, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


What you living in Jordan P "Phoenal because the Palis never did during the time-line you mention,some of course do today after the Zionist Terrorist exported them at GUN point ......between 1947-1949......it saved the Palestinians being Slaughtered.........so today Jordan have a remarkable Palestinian Queen.............


----------



## Phoenall (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







This BIASED link again that has no validity because it only puts the arab muslim side of the problem. The SOVEREIGN land owners under international law of 1923 granted the land to the Jews for their National Home. This you have a problem with as you do not want any International Laws to be in the Jews favour, so you post islamonazi propaganda that has no validity


----------



## Phoenall (May 24, 2015)

theliq said:


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






 You should really learn how to read.    The original Mandate for Palestine included trans Jordan and was changed in 1923 to partition Palestine into arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. The arab muslims had no legal rights to claim any of the Jewish Palestine land. Now they are claiming all of the land as arab Palestinian because they are greedy and cant stand to see any Jew better than they are.   By the way if the Palestinian arabs had not started to slaughter the Jews starting in 1917 then the Jews would not need to have forcibly removed the terrorists living in Israel after the declaration of independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I do not think you read my comments well.  While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations.  However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition.  In any event, annexation was never used as a means.
> 
> ...


I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" _(no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased)_.

To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities,...​
Once we get past all of the irrelevant fluff, we can get to the root of the matter. The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

 This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.


----------



## toastman (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Still spewing that same lie about the Armistice agreements. 

NOTHING in the Armistice agreements says that. NOTHING. At all. Not even close.


----------



## Phoenall (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 But only in respect of the terms of the Mandate and International law at the time. This being 1923 the laws were not same as they were in 1988 or 2000, so why do you always try and impose recent laws on the events of 1923. So in 1923 the territories belonged to the LoN and they could do as pleased with the land. These same international laws were in effect in 1949 and showed that Israel's land was still that granted in 1923. Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 and what you claim to be international borders are those of the Mandate for Palestine to delineate the various mandates.

 Nice try wont fly the wording of the treaties/agreements go against your allegations every time.


----------



## RoccoR (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think you read my comments well.  While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations.  However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition.  In any event, annexation was never used as a means.
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.


*(COMMENT)*

Remembering that it is a "self-imposed" limitation that the General Assembly and the Allied Forces need NOT to have impose upon themselves; and could wipe away just as easily.   In no way have the Arab contributed to either humanitarian law or principles of international relations in any significant way.  Each principle, law, treaty, covention and directive they point to in regards to the "Question of Palestine" is a issue pertaining to Western self-imposed limitations.

I think we agree that on --- *established by treaty *(as in Jordan as an example) or through *self-determination* (as in Israel as an example).  Remembering that the State of Israel was an end result of following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN General Assembly [A/RES/181(II)].



P F Tinmore said:


> This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.


*(COMMENT)*

Nothing was "affirmed" by the UN Armistice accept for the ceasefire lines at the FEBA and the cessation of hostilities between forces.

Having said that, over time the same lines have been used to establish other meaningful reference points.



			
				Letter to the Secretary-General from the Ambassador -- Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations said:
			
		

> 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.  _*SOURCE:*_ A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Ah, we agree on something in a straight forward manner.
> 
> ...


or through *self-determination* (as in Israel as an example).

OK, but as far as I can tell Israel did that in Palestine.

You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.


----------



## toastman (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



No one ever said they don't have a right to complain.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 24, 2015)

theliq said:


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



Yes indeed.  So tell us why Jordan's Palestinian queen refuses to allow the Palestinians a right of return back to Jordan?  Golly gee, is it actually possible Jordan feels relieved having Israel to now deal with their Palestinains?


----------



## aris2chat (May 24, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You do understand Rania does not actually rule?  It is her husband has his parliament that make the decisions.


----------



## RoccoR (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you not considering the principle factors.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > or through *self-determination* (as in Israel as an example).
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Palestinian is not an Arab Country.  It is the territory to which the Mandate applies.  It was defined by the Allied Powers and delineated by Allied Powers.  The citizenship eligibility was defined by the Allied Powers.

Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly, in a territory which was under the full powers of legislation and of administration of the Mandatory; selected by the Principal Allied Powers and obligated to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The "in Palestine" phrase --- gives the Arab no special status.

*All peoples have the right of self-determination.* By virtue of the fact they are free to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.


There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.



P F Tinmore said:


> You don't think that the Palestinians have the right to complain about that.


*(COMMENT)*

NO!  The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force.  While they want and argue for the "right of Palestinian self-determination," --- they do not actually make allowances to respect the rights of others.  In particular --- they have NO respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of other people.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you not considering the principle factors.
> 
> ...


Speaking of no respect what about all those foreign assholes who drove the Palestinians out of their homes and continue to do so today?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you not considering the principle factors.
> 
> ...


Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly,...​
*That is a lie.*

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. The Avalon Project UN General Assembly Resolution 181​
Palestinian citizens living in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens per resolution 181. This reiterates customary international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing. Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
So, the right to return is imbedded in resolution 181 and international law. It has nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, you believe that resolution 181 is still valid.


----------



## RoccoR (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

And this is another problem.

Ask yourself:  When did YOUR family "immigrate" to the US?

_In my case, I am second generation American.   Obviously my father was first generation, and my grandparents were the Immigrants.  As Americans, my father was born in York Run PA in 1917.​_
In your eyes --- when does my family convert from foreign immigrants to Americans.



P F Tinmore said:


> Speaking of no respect what about all those foreign assholes who drove the Palestinians out of their homes and continue to do so today?


*(COMMENT)*

In general, the immigrant line stops when the first generation is born.  All my uncles _(first generation Americans)_ were WWII veterans.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You've changed the subject to the "right of return."   A different issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> [QUOTE="RoccoR, post: 11462101, member: 25033"Israeli was declared pursuant to the guidelines established by the General Assembly,...


*That is a lie.*

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. The Avalon Project UN General Assembly Resolution 181​
Palestinian citizens living in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens per resolution 181. This reiterates customary international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing. Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​
So, the right to return is imbedded in resolution 181 and international law. It has nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, you believe that resolution 181 is still valid.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

There is a difference between those that departed _(for whatever reason)_ the Territory delineated in Annex A to resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947 before 15 May 1948 --- and those that departed after 15 May 1948 _(upon the recognition of independence)_. 


			
				Non-binding Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 217 A (III). Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
			
		

> *Article 13.*
> 
> (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
> 
> (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.​





			
				Non-binding Resolution 194 (III). Palestine -- Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator said:
			
		

> 11. _Resolves_ that the refugees wishing to return to their homes *and live at peace* with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;  *SOURCE:* A/RES/194 (III)  11 December 1948



It should be noted that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entered into force nearly 30 years after the War of Independence (23 March 1976) And nearly a decade after the 1967 Six Day War.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (May 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 Not when they did the same thing in Palestine and called it trans Jordan. Do the Jews have the right to complain about that and the loss of Jewish property in the process ?

 You also forget that in 1923 International law was made that granted the Jews and muslims their respective areas of Palestine for national homes. So why do you support the muslim side in this and claim that the Jewish side is illegal ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 And what about them, if the arab muslims were not illegally occupying Israeli land then they would not be evicted. How many an produce a valid deed to the property they claim is theirs


----------



## Phoenall (May 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 NOPE the right of return is only available in those nations that agree and accept it. Also it does not apply to deportees evicted for crimes against the security of the country. So all those Palestinian terrorists do not have a valid claim do they.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you not considering the principle factors.
> 
> ...


Palestinian is not an Arab Country.  It is the territory to which the Mandate applies.​
The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration. Palestine is the place.

NO!  The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force.​
Do you mean like the Palestinians want Palestine?

*Shame on them.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you not considering the principle factors.
> 
> ...


There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples,...​
Peoples? Hmmm. What does that mean?


----------



## montelatici (May 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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



Palestine was never called Trans-Jordania.  Trans-Jordania was a separate territory included in the Mandate, as reported in the Mandatories 1921 Report in a separate section, X. separate from Palestine and whose boundaries are clearly defined:

AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921. ​
"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.

Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley. The people are partly settled townsmen and agriculturists, partly wandering Bedouin; the latter, however, cultivate areas, more or less fixed, during certain seasons of the year.

When Palestine west of the Jordan was occupied by the British Army and placed under a British military administration, over Trans-Jordania and a large part of Syria there was established an Arab administration, with its capital at Damascus. The ruler was His Highness the Emir Feisal, the third son of H.M. King Hussein, the King of the Hejaz. When Damascus was occupied by French troops in July, 1920, and the Emir Feisal withdrew, it was necessary to adopt fresh measures in Trans-Jordania. I proceeded to the central town of Salt on August 20th, and, at an assembly of notables and sheikhs of the district, announced that His Majesty's Government favoured the establishment of a system of local self- government, assisted by a small number of British officers as advisers.

Local councils were accordingly formed in the various districts, the people not being ready to unite in any form of combined government for Trans-Jordania as a whole. Five British officers were appointed to assist the councils and their officials and to aid in organising a gendarmerie. No British troops were stationed in the district.

It cannot be claimed that the system of administration so set up was satisfactory. The authority of the councils was flouted by large sections of the population; taxes were collected with difficulty; the funds at the disposal of the local authorities were insufficient to ensure the maintenance of order, still less to defray the cost of roads, schools, hospitals, or other improvements for the benefit of the people.

Some progress was beginning, however, to be made when, in the month of November, H.H. the Emir Abdallah, the second son of King Hussein, arrived from the Hejaz at Ma'an, to the south of Trans-Jordania. His purpose was declared to be to restore a Shereefian government in Damascus. His arrival caused much disturbance in the minds of the people of Trans- Jordania and further impaired the authority, already slight, of the local authorities. From Ma'an the Emir proceeded on March 2nd to Amman, a town on the Hejaz Railway to the east of Salt, and there established his headquarters.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies being in Palestine in the month of March, a Conference was held with the Emir, who came to Jerusalem for the purpose. An arrangement was reached by which the Emir undertook to carry on the administration of Trans-Jordania, under the general direction of the High Commissioner of Palestine, as representing the Mandatory Power, and with the assistance of a small number of British officers, for a period of six months pending a definite settlement. Order and public security were to be maintained and there were to be no attacks against Syria. Since that time a close connection has continued between Palestine and Trans-Jordania. British representatives remain in the principal centres.

I paid a visit to Amman on April 18th as the guest of the Emir and explained in an address to the sheikhs and notables the arrangement that had been made. The Emir came to Palestine again in the month of May. The political and technical officers of the Palestine Administration have made frequent visits to Trans-Jordania and have assisted the local officials with their advice. The difficulties of local finance have continued. Order and security are still lacking. A grant-in-aid of £180,000 was, however, voted by Parliament in July for the assistance of Trans-Jordania, and it is hoped that this assistance will enable an effective reserve force of gendarmerie to be established, revenue to be collected and the government of the district to be placed on a sounder footing. The district possesses great agricultural wealth, and the local revenue, if it were collected, would fully meet the local expenditure.

The political and economic connection between Palestine and Trans-Jordania is very close. Trade is active; communications are constant; disturbance in the one area cannot fail to be of detriment to the other; the prevention of raids from east of the Jordan and the preservation of order there are of no small importance to the population on the west. Syria, too, has a close interest in the security of her southern border. If Trans-Jordania became a prey to anarchy, not only her own inhabitants, but also the neighbouring territories, would be sufferers. All of them look to the Mandatory Power to prevent an eventuality which, in default of her influence and authority, might prove not remote. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations Balfour Declaration text 30 July 1921


----------



## RoccoR (May 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  montelatici, et al,

No, I don't think you understand what "Palestine" means, as determined by the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinian is not an Arab Country.  It is the territory to which the Mandate applies.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The territory of Palestine was defined by the Order n Council:

The limits of this Order are 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 
To "mandate" something is to issue and "an official order or commission to do something."  It is what the word means.    In this case the Mandate was an order adopted by the Council and outlined in a set of provisions.  The degree of authority or control to be exercised by the Mandatory varies according to the character of the territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > NO!  The Palestinians want everything either handed to them on a Silver Platter or to take it by force.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians have no authority to assume a leadership role within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, under the terms of the Unconditional Surrender of the Ottoman Empire.

It is a matter of treaty and self-determination.



montelatici said:


> Palestine was never called Trans-Jordania.  Trans-Jordania was a separate territory included in the Mandate, as reported in the Mandatories 1921 Report in a separate section, X. separate from Palestine and whose boundaries are clearly defined:
> 
> AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.​"X.--TRANS-JORDANIA.
> 
> Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania.


*(COMMENT)*

Trans-Jordan was clearly part of the Mandate.  It is separate _(because it was already promised to the Sharif of Mecca for one of his sons)_ yes --- but only as far as Article 25 of the Mandate applies.  It was partitioned early on with the blessing of the other Allied Powers.

You guys periodically bring this issue up. And each time, I have to explain it again.  You must use the interpretation of the Permanent Mandate Commission and not some lame brain pro-Palestinian trying to make some unsubstantiated point.

"*INCLUDED*" (the very key word here) "in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania."   The Arabs have, since the early years of the Mandate, make this suggestion that Trans-Jordania was not part of the Mandate for Palestine.  When in fact it is all one Mandate.  The portion of the mandate east of the Jordan River was subject to Article 25 and not to be considered part of the allow territory for Jewish Immigration or consideration for the Jewish National Home.  But as the Mandatory made quite clear, when this was addressed in 1929:



			
				M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun: said:
			
		

> 1003. *Palestine and Trans-Jordan: Agreement between Great Britain and the Amir of Trans-Jordan : Attitude of the Commission.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (May 25, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> And the Pali's & their supporters bitch about Israrel's peace proposals.  Don't that beat all?  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> 
> PA Parliament Jews Have No Right to Even One Inch of Israel WIBR WARN Radio--Covering the End of Days as they happen


There are no Israeli peace proposals. 

The Israeli's do not want peace.


----------



## Hossfly (May 25, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > And the Pali's & their supporters bitch about Israrel's peace proposals.  Don't that beat all?  It's called Palestinian mentality.  Heh Heh!
> ...


Riiiiiiiight!

Palestinian activists on May 11 broke up a conference in east Jerusalem where Israelis and Palestinians met to discuss the two-state solution. The activists belong to the "anti-normalization" campaign, which aims to thwart meetings between Israelis and Palestinians.

The conference at the Ambassador Hotel was organized by the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), a non-governmental organization (NGO) think tank based in Jerusalem. It has been working towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Entitled, "Is The Two-State Solution Still Relevant?," the conference was supposed to include a discussion on the issue from the perspectives of the Palestinian side and the Israeli Left.

Palestinians Anti-Peace Campaign


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 25, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


How do you "normalize" an occupation?

What Israeli policies do they change?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  montelatici, et al,
> 
> No, I don't think you understand what "Palestine" means, as determined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that the Mandate for Palestine did not have a Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

In this case, they are talking about the positive aspects of establishing Friendly relations and Co-operation between the two states (A/RES/2625).



P F Tinmore said:


> How do you "normalize" an occupation?
> 
> What Israeli policies do they change?


*(COMMENT)*

Full normalization would ultimately lead to the termination of the Belligerent Occupation and the establishment of formal diplomatic relations under general accepted practices.

But, there are still powerful forces that would prefer that Israel and the Palestinians not achieve such a level.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not sure what you're asking.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you saying that the Mandate for Palestine did not have a Palestine?


*(COMMENT)*

A Mandate has a territorial limit to its authority for the order that was applied.  Before the Mandate, there was not such legal entity called "Palestine."  Palestine was defined by the Allied Powers pursuant to the San Remo Agreement and the Treaty of Sevres.  The Mandate for Palestine was made applicable by the Council of the League of Nations, to that territory determined by the Allied Powers.

Again, read the definition:

The limits of this Order are 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
I don't know why you are trying to complicate it.  It is only a sentence long.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> In this case, they are talking about the positive aspects of establishing Friendly relations and Co-operation between the two states (A/RES/2625).
> 
> ...


The Zionist's goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That goal is still pursued today.

Nothing is going to change that.


----------



## RoccoR (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al

Things change over time in most political pursuits.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionist's goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That goal is still pursued today.
> 
> Nothing is going to change that.


*(COMMENT)*

Most successive diplomatic arrangements are not constructed by men of such negative attitudes.  Change is always possible.

In the 21st Century, there is no question that the Palestinian wants all the territory formerly under the Mandate (less that allocated to Jordan --- east of the Jordan River).  It is made very clear in the Unity Government by Khaled Mashal, Chairman of the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement, in 2013 ("Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures."  It is no different than the language used in the Palestinian National Charter more than four decades ago:  "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit."

It is the very foundation for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to further Jihad and for the Fedayeen to promote armed struggle.

Any security containment of the Palestinian of the quarantine of Palestinian Jihadist, terrorist, insurgents and other associated asymmetric combatants is rooted in this basic concepts.  If you want "change" you must be willing to change.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 Define Palestine in respect of the LoN treaty of Sevres and the proposed mandate of 1923 will answer your question.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



OUTSTANDING POINT!  You have a very fine brain.  Just look at the documented factual results of Israel's ethnic cleansing.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians residing in Israel.  And now there are only around 6 million of them left.  Take that you Zionists.

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## Phoenall (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Define Palestinians in terms of the treaty of Sevres and the LoN first to see where you are failing to understand reality


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> In this case, they are talking about the positive aspects of establishing Friendly relations and Co-operation between the two states (A/RES/2625).
> 
> ...


You don't normalize an occupation. You eliminate the occupation.

Israel has made it clear that they will never allow the occupation to end.


----------



## Hossfly (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


C'est la vie. Doo doo happens, Bub.


----------



## Phoenall (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 LINK from a non partisan and truthfull site


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


When does Israel plan to lift the siege on Gaza?

When does Israel plan to leave the Jordan Valley?


----------



## RoccoR (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you are misusing the term "siege."  A "siege" is used in the offense with the intent to prevent conquer by attrition or assault --- during wartime.   In the case of GAZA, the applicable term is containment and the establishment of a security barrier to prevent:

*It is understood that:  *small arms and light weapons (SALW) are broadly used by many different groups including but not limited to militaries, gangs and terrorist organisations, --- including Palestinian terrorist Organizations, Islamic Resistance Movements and Militant activities, and generalized Jihadist and Fedayeen.

*Noting* that the main factors, which influence the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, are:

a)weak border control
b)cross-border smuggling
c)The black Market
d)The demand for arms
e)The poor monitoring of the trade of small arms and light weapons,​
It have become necessary to contain the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) from obtaining SALW to further the official hostile agenda through the infiltration and exfiltration of asymmetric elements to pursue the targeting of cross-border civilian targets:

attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
kidnapping or hostage taking;
causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
threatening to commit any of the hostile acts
*INFORMATIONALS*

*Egypt Destroys Over 500 Tunnels Under Gaza Border*
The 521 tunnels– believed to be primarily used for smuggling weapons, facilitating clandestine movement ... tunnel networks following information that Palestinian terror group Hamas was likely coordinating with Islamist …​Breitbart News · 4 hours ago

*Hamas Using Truce to Prepare for Next Clash With Israel*
Due to Egypt’s stringent policy of destroying smuggling tunnels, Hamas is not able to smuggle weapons in from outside ... and an old-new friend has reappeared: Iran.Hamas and Tehran reestablished ties this year …​The Algemeiner · 5/19/2015

*Israel Stops Smuggling Boat, Arrests 3 Hamas Operatives*
During interrogation, the three suspects provided "detailed information" on prior weapons smuggling and explained how Hamas uses fisherman and smugglers to transport material for weapons production to the Gaza Strip. Smuggling attempts by sea has …​The Christian Broadcasting Network · 2/12/2015



P F Tinmore said:


> When does Israel plan to lift the siege on Gaza?
> 
> When does Israel plan to leave the Jordan Valley?


*(COMMENT)*

The issue of settlements is a matter that is suppose to be resolved via the dispute resolution agreement outlined in the Oslo Accords.

*OSLO I * Article XV

RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
*OSLO II* ARTICLE XXI

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
It should be noted that the Islamic Resistance Movement indicated in its 2013 Political Position Paper, that sovereignty over the entire territory is demanded:   "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures."  This essentially means the dismantlement of the Jewish State of Israel; as established under the UN Partition Plan.   This is not unlike the threat base correspondence of 1948 by the Arab Higher Committee:

It should be noted that the Arab Higher Committee _*(as the aggressor as part of the Aggressor Force in 1948)*_ was the last Arab Palestinian organization that stipulated the end of the conflict:  "In conclusion, the Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to stress the following:" When will it end:



(g) The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I apologize for being late with this.  I had a difficult time finding a specific source making the answer applicable to this topic.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > There is a universal realization of the right of all peoples,...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*



			
				HUMAN RIGHTS LIBRARY said:
			
		

> "The use of the term "peoples" in this document shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights that may attach to the term under international law."
> *SOURCE:* U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001)



It is the mountain made from a mole hill.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are misusing the term "siege."  A "siege" is used in the offense with the intent to prevent conquer by attrition or assault --- during wartime.   In the case of GAZA, the applicable term is containment and the establishment of a security barrier to prevent:
> 
> ...


Thank you for this perfect description of Israel.


attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
kidnapping or hostage taking;
causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I apologize for being late with this.  I had a difficult time finding a specific source making the answer applicable to this topic.
> 
> ...


How is this applicable to Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are misusing the term "siege."  A "siege" is used in the offense with the intent to prevent conquer by attrition or assault --- during wartime.   In the case of GAZA, the applicable term is containment and the establishment of a security barrier to prevent:
> 
> ...


*Noting​​*that the main factors, which influence the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, are:

a)weak border control
b)cross-border smuggling
c)The black Market
d)The demand for arms
e)The poor monitoring of the trade of small arms and light weapons,​
What do you mean by illicit? It is legal for Palestinians to import an manufacture arms.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Are you referring to the Palestinian occupation of Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are misusing the term "siege."  A "siege" is used in the offense with the intent to prevent conquer by attrition or assault --- during wartime.   In the case of GAZA, the applicable term is containment and the establishment of a security barrier to prevent:
> 
> ...


The 521 tunnels– believed to be primarily used for smuggling weapons,​
Smuggling is the term for importing illegally.

It is not illegal for Palestine to import weapons.

In this case "smuggling" is a propaganda term.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are misusing the term "siege."  A "siege" is used in the offense with the intent to prevent conquer by attrition or assault --- during wartime.   In the case of GAZA, the applicable term is containment and the establishment of a security barrier to prevent:
> 
> ...


Oslo, blah, blah, blah.

Oslo is dead.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Those Zionists just don't get it.  You see folks, the Palestinians are "importing weapons" to protect & defend Israel.  Silly Zionists.


----------



## Phoenall (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 When hamas stops firing illegal rockets at Israeli children and agrees to peace talks and mutual borders

 When Jordan tells them they are no longer needed to police it for them


----------



## Phoenall (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Yes when they are to be used for illegal purposes like attacking children to force a responce


----------



## Phoenall (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 It is when there is a legally imposed blockade in place to stop just that


----------



## Phoenall (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 Is that why Abu Mazen tries to use it to attack Israel with all the time. When it suits the Palestinian side it is alive and well, when it doesn't it was breached and so no longer exists


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Abu Mazen left the government in June of 2007. He doesn't speak for anyone.


----------



## Phoenall (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 He still spouts his views every day. and it was him that started the ICC investigation into war crimes last summer


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'll give you the general list of terms that are use in the law enforcement, intelligence and security
	
 circles.

[QUOTE ="P F Tinmore, post: 11474719, member: 21837"]What do you mean by illicit?[/ QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

*How do small arms become illicit?  (Office for Disarmament Affairs - UNODA)*
Sources of small arms supplies to areas of crisis and conflict are varied. Domestically, small arms can  enter
illicit circulation through distribution, theft, leakage, divergence, pilferage or resale. Shipments of small arms to conflict zones from abroad are most often small-scale consignments - a steady trickle of weapons across porous borders. The cumulative destabilizing force of such small-scale  trade
	
 is not to be underestimated, particularly in unstable regions
	
 where small arms are traded from one conflict to another.

*Terms and Definitions*


*Ammunition*:  shells and missiles for light weapons; containers with missiles or shells for single-action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems; anti-personnel and anti-tank hand grenades; and landmines.(Source: Report of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms)

*Illegal black market transfers*  "In clear violation of national and/or international laws and without official government consent or control, these transfers may involve corrupt government officials acting on their own for personal gain." (Source: Small Arms Survey 2001, p. 167)

*Illicit grey market transfers* "Governments, their agents, or individuals exploiting loopholes or intentionally circumventing national and/or international laws or policies"  (Source: Small Arms Survey 2001, p. 167)

*Legal Transfers*  "These occur with either the active or passive involvement of governments or their authorized agents, and in accordance with both national and international law."  (Source: Small Arms Survey 2001, p. 167)

*Light weapons*: heavy machine-guns; hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns; portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems; portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems; mortars of calibers of less than 100 mm.  (Source: Report of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms)

*Small arms*: revolvers and self-loading pistols; rifles and carbines; sub-machine guns;assault rifles; light machine-guns.  (Source: Report of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms)

The general understandings pertaining to what the UN intent is contained in A/52/298 27 August 1997.  The central list for most SALW resolution can be found at UNODA website.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 11474719, member: 21837"]It is legal for Palestinians to import an manufacture arms.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

First:  Only to the extent that it does not counter the strengthen coordination and cooperation among States in combating crimes that might be connected with terrorism, including drug trafficking in all its aspects, illicit arms trade, in particular of small arms and light weapons, including man-portable air defense systems , money laundering and smuggling of nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological and other potentially deadly materials.  (A/RES/60/288)

Second:  When such weapons are not used to violate international law and treaties; or threaten the sovereignty and integrity of another nation; violating Customary International Humanitarian Law or the associated treaties.  (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)

Remembering that governments, their agents, and other individuals attempting to exploit loopholes or intentionally circumventing international laws and diplomatic principles to accommodate their political agenda is NOT considered lawful.  This would include supplying asymmetric forces, insurgents, jihadist and other designated terrorist activities with weapons.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'll give you the general list of terms that are use in the law enforcement, intelligence and security
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First:  Only to the extent that it does not counter the strengthen coordination and cooperation among States in combating crimes that might be connected with terrorism, including drug trafficking in all its aspects, illicit arms trade, in particular of small arms and light weapons, including man-portable air defense systems , money laundering and smuggling of nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological and other potentially deadly materials.  (A/RES/60/288)

Second:  When such weapons are not used to violate international law and treaties; or threaten the sovereignty and integrity of another nation; violating Customary International Humanitarian Law or the associated treaties.  (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)

Remembering that governments, their agents, and other individuals attempting to exploit loopholes or intentionally circumventing international laws and diplomatic principles to accommodate their political agenda is NOT considered lawful.  This would include supplying asymmetric forces, insurgents, jihadist and other designated terrorist activities with weapons.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The category of defensive" cannot be justified is the State supports armed conflict against a member nation, or supports jihadist action.  Nor can defensive be considered a justification when the military wing is of the state is a designated terrorist organization.



P F Tinmore said:


> But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?


*(COMMENT)*

You cannot declare a Chapter VII, Article 51, defense when the state is firing rockets and mortars across its borders (into another member nations sovereignty) and making armed incursions into another sovereignty  to commit acts of war, kidnaping and murder in violation of international customary law or in violation of humanitarian law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## member (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 _*"...He doesn't speak for anyone..."*_





you know what's a SICK thing: that terrorists _*"speak"*_ for your beloved.... (_i had no choice but to vote for them_) Palestinians.  when hamass took over gaza - it got even worse for the palestinians--and to top it all off - 'they' are not allowing any elections anytime soon, so they're stuck with deranged terrorists as their Bwaaaa-pathetic-fake-terrorist-Gov't.

...and i'm sure you know:  _*"Guess who's (well, wants to anyway even without an invitation) coming to Dinner?"*_


_nope_ - not ahmadinejihad, or Sidney Poitier, or Al Queda......













 

​


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The category of defensive" cannot be justified is the State supports armed conflict against a member nation, or supports jihadist action.  Nor can defensive be considered a justification when the military wing is of the state is a designated terrorist organization.
> 
> ...


All third grade name calling aside, there is no border between Gaza and Israel. They are the same place.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Gaza is part of Palestine. There is no border because there has not been a peace agreements yet.

Are you pretending to be dumb?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

toastman said:


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


You don't understand what you just said.

You can go from Palestine Gaza to Palestine West Bank without crossing any border. Interesting dat.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Yo DO have to cross a border, which is guarded by Israel. You;re getting mixed up between 'borders' and 'permanent internationally recognized boundaries' (the ladder of which the 'Palestinians' don't have. 
You're talking as if you can freely go into Gaza from Israel or from Israel into the West Bank (and Vice Versa). 

Kerem Shalom border crossing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Border crossing,


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Just say so. There are no borders there.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



North Korea and South Korea are also separated by an armistice line.


----------



## aris2chat (May 27, 2015)

toastman said:


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



And the Hawaiian island are separated by an ocean.  They have to cross that ocean and mother nature might make that difficult at times.  Maybe if they pay tribute to the volcano to grand them a peaceful and safe crossing?

We all have to be nice to others to get from point A to B.  We all make compromises.  We all have people we don't particularly like.  So what?  Trying to wipe out the whole family of our neighbor is wrong.  Throwing stones or firing shots at their windows will get us arrested.  Our neighbor could build a high stone wall to keep us out for the safety of both of us
Oh wait, that is what Israel did.  A fence by gaza and a wall by the PA.  But hamas keep attacking and tunneling into Israel's back yard.  Now if it was gophers they would be killed or captures.


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OH, come now.  You play this border game whenever you lose control of the discussion.

The State of Israel (1948/49) was recognized by the UN before the State of Palestine (1988).  By Treaty, the international border between Egypt and Israel is one strike against you.  Another strike is that the PLO Declared Independence and the UN recognizes the state in the territory occupied in 1967.



P F Tinmore said:


> All third grade name calling aside, there is no border between Gaza and Israel. They are the same place.


*(COMMENT)*

They are not the same place.  They are (today) separately recognized entities; one sovereign and one in the stage of becoming sovereign.

While the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, encloses the State of Israel and Gaza, Palestine was not a sovereign state.   "The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt; according to the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department.

You are now  --- and have been, for some time, sensitive about the designation of "terrorist."


While many European diplomats resent the designation of Hamas, pointing to the group's dominance of the Gaza Strip and its centrality to regional events, the EU will likely work assiduously to reinstate the designation for two reasons: first, to protect its designation regime from further legal challenges and defend the Council's original ban on Hamas, and second, to prevent an inherently apolitical, independent judicial action from damaging the prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East. The very same day the EU court issues its judgment, the UN Security Council is expected to vote on a Palestinian resolution setting a November 2016 deadline for outlining a final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, including Israeli withdrawal from lands sought for a Palestinian state. These two actions will be seen by many, especially in Israel, as intertwined. And Hamas will no doubt point to the decision as vindication of its claim that it is not a terrorist group -- its recent kidnappings, rocket salvos, and tunnel attacks notwithstanding.   Source;  Washington Institute​
In General the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades [the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)], have conducted many Jihadist and terrorist attacks including large-scale suicide bombings, kidnaping and murder on both Israeli civilian and military targets.   HAMAS official policy is that Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine --- as they define it be as from the River to the Sea.  That makes HAMAS a state which support terrorism.  The EU Court ruling (62010TA0400: *Case T-400/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014)* under the political pressure and terrorist intimidation, made the judgement it did --- because of the inclusion as part of the Palestinian Unity Government and the threats (by HAMAS officials) against European countries that supported the designation.  By lifting it from the designated terrorist list, it allows for the continuation of negotiations without violating the principle that Diplomatic Missions do not negotiate with terrorists.  The EU Court does not suggest HAMAS does not support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists.  On the contrary, HAMAS itself admits as much.  The EU Court in NO WAY absolves or finds in favor of HAMAS on the matter of its:

Seriously intimidating a population,
Unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
Seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​
The simple fact is, that the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), and its associates have an extensive history of behaviors and self admission that they perform these acts to intimidate the UN Assembly, and EU membership into oppressing Israel in its efforts to hold and maintain it's statehood, preserving it culture and heritage, and protect its citizens against the savagery and barbarity by which the Islamic Resistance Movement define themselves.

Amnesty International accuses Hamas of torturing, killing Palestinians in new report on Gaza conflict

Amnesty said those targeted were either political rivals of Hamas, including members of the Fatah party of ... of rockets at Israel and fought three wars with the Jewish state. According to official U.N. figures, over 2,200 …
FOX News · 10 hours ago
Hamas
Hamas tortured and killed Palestinians during 2014 Gaza war, according to Amnesty International
National Post
Hamas accused of torturing, executing Palestinians

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH, come now.  You play this border game whenever you lose control of the discussion.
> 
> ...


The court ruled in favor of Hamas because the designation was bogus. My guess is that it is the same everyplace. Bogus.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH, come now.  You play this border game whenever you lose control of the discussion.
> 
> ...


HAMAS official policy is that Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine...​
What would you suggest to liberate Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Obviously, you didn't read the findings.



P F Tinmore said:


> The court ruled in favor of Hamas because the designation was bogus. My guess is that it is the same everyplace. Bogus.


*(COMMENT)*

So, you are saying that the designation is "bogus" because the Palestinians, in general, and the Islamic Resistance Movement has never:

Seriously intimidating a population,
Unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
Seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​
And you are say that still today, that HAMAS did not:  "Torture and Kill fellow Palestinians" during the 2014 Engagement?

You are saying that Two Palestinian, armed with a gun, axes and knives did not murdered four worshippers during the morning prayer service in a synagogue?

You are saying that HAMAS Members did not kidnap and murder three teenagers?

You're telling me that Palestinian Authority Arab DID NOT hurled firebombs and rocks at Israeli school bus and soldiers in at least two different locations in Samaria Thursday, causing light injuries to a soldier. ---  While Hamas attacked an Israeli school bus Thursday. An anti-tank rocket struck the bus, seriously wounding a 16-year-old boy and injuring the driver.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Obviously, you didn't read the findings.
> 
> ...


Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's aggression.

Hamas attacks in Palestine.

Israel attacks in Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OH yes...  The fact that you have to ask what the right thing to do --- explains the confusion.  Jihad is NEVER the right thing to do.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > HAMAS official policy is that Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Follow the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; to include:

Refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
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.
Refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH yes...  The fact that you have to ask what the right thing to do --- explains the confusion.  Jihad is NEVER the right thing to do.
> 
> ...


You are ducking the question.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



As usual, I prove my statements and refute yours, while you have nothing


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Say so doesn't prove anything.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Like I said, I provide links, you provide zilch. You're not too good at this whole debating thing.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What has Hamas done for the Palestinian people since coming into power?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH yes...  The fact that you have to ask what the right thing to do --- explains the confusion.  Jihad is NEVER the right thing to do.
> 
> ...


Follow the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; to include:​
An occupation is not a friendly relation.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

toastman said:


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


You provide links to say so.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


I provide links to back up my statements perfectly. 

What have you provided?


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are being somewhat naive here.



P F Tinmore said:


> Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's aggression.


*(COMMENT)*

No conflict is based on a one-for-one death to determine the victor of the conflict.  That is simply foolish logic.  Each opponent in the combat engagement attempts to  dispatch the opponent in a decisive manner.  

By "drop in the bucket" --- you are complementing the Israeli Defensive response which protects its citizens better and dispatches its opponents in greater numbers.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Hamas attacks in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

No, absolutely incorrect.  HAMAS made its attacks against the Sovereign State of Israel, as recognized by A/RES/273 (III)  11 May 1949; and not the territory under the mandate.  This is as I stated previously, this is merely an attempt by Palestinians to intentionally circumventing the intent of diplomatic principles and international laws or policies.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel attacks in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this is an attempt to intentionally circumventing the concept intent of diplomatic principles and international laws or policies.  Israel was defending its sovereignty and its citizenry under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter; _(Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security)_; to wit --- acts of aggression as defined by Definition of Aggression _(Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.)_.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."  If it were true, then it would be, at least by now, a theme that describes a civil war.  But it is not true.  Israel was established in accordance with the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly.  Without regard to the argument of borders, for which is contentious even within the Palestinian convoluted government, Israel has established sovereign control and established its borders.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No duck here at all.  None at all.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Q:  What would you suggest to liberate Palestine?
A:  Follow the principles in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States!

The Palestinians have already decided that Jihad is the solution.  So be it.  But remember it is an act of war; a war the Palestinians will not win.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are not following the principles.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Follow the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; to include:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The "Occupation" existed before the State of Palestine existed.

Defending Israeli sovereignty, it in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You truly are an idiot. Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza, no matter how much you refuse to believe it.


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are being somewhat naive here.
> 
> ...



Why you bother posting all this for such an ignorant person like Tinmore is beyond me.

He doesn't even know what Palestine is


----------



## Hossfly (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No duck here at all.  None at all.
> 
> ...


This should fortify your last statement, Rocco.


Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction marked "Nakba" day - signifying the "catastrophe" of the establishment of the modern state of Israel - by calling for terrorism to destroy Israel and conquer the state as the "only" way.

In a post on the official Facebook page of Fatah on May 14 in time for Nakba day, translated and revealed by _Palestinian Media Watch_ (PMW) on Sunday, a message read, "what was taken by force can only be regained by force, the 67th anniversary of the Nakba."

The words accompanied an image showing the number 67 in Arabic numerals, with the digit 7 formed out of an image of a key indicating the "keys" to Arab homes allegedly taken by Israel, along with a rifle, and amap showing the entire state of Israel, including both sides of the 1949 Armistice lines. This, despite Fatah's ambiguous statements indicating apparent support for a two-state solution.


Abbas s Fatah Calls to Conquer Israel By Force - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are being somewhat naive here.
> 
> ...


In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​
Do you have anything to prove otherwise?


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What the hell is wrong with you????


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No duck here at all.  None at all.
> 
> ...


The Palestinians have consistently called for peace based on international law. It looks like you and the Palestinians are in agreement on this issue.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Could I take that as a no?


----------



## toastman (May 27, 2015)

Take what as a no ? Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza. What is there to prove? It's common knowledge. 

You asked him to disprove something that you didn't even prove. You're like a little child. Why do you bother debating here when you are wrong 99% of the time?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at the map on the right


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is what it is.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.



			
				Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
			
		

> _Affirms its 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 fulfills 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;  _*SOURCE:*_ *A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012*





			
				PLO-NAD Borders Statement said:
			
		

> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> ...





			
				Chief Palestinian Negotiator Dr. Saeb Erakat said:
			
		

> Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
> _*SOURCE:*_ *Press Release:  9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD*




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh this is so strange!



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

OK, let's see it.

Where is this call for peace?
And if they want peace, why did they 

Seriously intimidating a population,
Unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
Seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​
What specific law do the Palestinian ask for in there peace bid?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?[/QUOTE]




Right up until they become OFFENSIVE weapons, which is the case in gaza. Any weapon entering gaza is intended to be used OFFENSIVELY as hamas has stated. So guess your argument fails once again.

 By the way IED's are not defensive they are terror weapons, rockets fired at civilians are not defensive they are terror weapons and lastly H.E packed into tunnels under Israel schools are not defensive they are terror weapons


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Correct as the Lon granted the land to Isreal in 1923, and spelt out the borders of the National Home of the Jews. These included gaza, Golan heights and the whole of the west bank. The arab muslims claim that these borders were those of the nation of Palestine and fail to produce any evidence to substantiate their claims


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

toastman said:


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







He does not need to pretend.................


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Why is it interesting as the borders have yet to be negotiated. Until then the cease fire line act as unofficial borders and both parties have set up border crossings on these lines. I would like to see you physically go from the west bank to Israel and then to gaza


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is what it is.
> 
> ...


Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Look who is ducking the facts!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > It is what it is.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I suppose you are trying to say that the UN is wrong...   You like to suggest this, but we all know it is not fact.



			
				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.*" - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948



You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this.  "That has never happened."



			
				EXCERPT: 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations said:
			
		

> _Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee *in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions*,  _*SOURCE:*_ *A/RES/273 (III)  11 May 1949*



It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






Only because the arab muslims refuse to give up their aim of world domination


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Look who is ducking the facts!
> 
> ...


Palestine (?) offered to recognize Israel on the '67 borders.Those who want the partition have jumped on the bandwagon.

However, Israel rejected the offer. '67 borders are out.

Now back to my deflected question.

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


The LoN never annexed that territory (or any territory) so it was not theirs to give away.


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you will notice that the UN has already decided that the Resolution was implemented; maybe not to your satisfaction, but it was implemented and used as a reference up to and through the last status change for the State of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have anything to prove otherwise?


*(COMMENT)*

AGAIN --- very plain and simple.



			
				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.*" - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948



You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this.  "That has never happened."



			
				EXCERPT: 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations said:
			
		

> _Recalling_ its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee *in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions*,  _*SOURCE:*_ *A/RES/273 (III)  11 May 1949*





Now it is my turn.

Do you have anything from the UN that says after 4 December 2012 that says otherwise?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

first off, the League of Nations did not have to annex any territory.  It was unconditionally surrender by the Ottoman Empire.  But that is only relevant to your claim that you KNOW for a fact that the territory had to be annexed before disposition is made.  You actually cannot find any international that requires that.



P F Tinmore said:


> The LoN never annexed that territory (or any territory) so it was not theirs to give away.


*(COMMENT)*

Sovereignty and independence can be acquired a couple of different ways.  The most common are by the "right of self-determination" and the other it by "Treaty;" as we discussed in *Posting #141* - nearly a 100 responses back.  Remember, we talked about Jordan and the Treaty that gave the Emir sovereign status; and Israel that through the avenue afforded it by the "Step Preparatory to Independence" --- Declared Independence.  See Postings #123 Examples of Israel/Jordan --- and --- Posting #120 The Unconditional Surrender/the Westphalia System Peace of Westphalia _(composed of the: Treaty of Münster --- and --- Treaty of Osnabrück)_/and the Application.

Whether or no you believe this make-believe International Law that requires annexation, or not, is irrelevant to the conditions that formed Israel.  Because they were not awarded their territory by the Mandatory or League --- they declared independence.  

Your argument is not of any value here.  In the first half of the 20th Century, the Council/Assembly was still using protocols that originated with the the concepts that forged the fundamentals of the Westphalia Treaties.  We were not following the demands of the population --- formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(in league with the Central Powers of WWI and the Axis Powers of WWII).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I think you will notice that the UN has already decided that the Resolution was implemented; maybe not to your satisfaction, but it was implemented and used as a reference up to and through the last status change for the State of Palestine.
> 
> ...


I don't see a Jewish state and an Arab state on the proposed borders. I don't see an international city of Jerusalem.

So what makes you think that resolution 181 was implemented besides some political blabber out of the UN?

Now can we get back to my question that you have been ducking?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> first off, the League of Nations did not have to annex any territory.  It was unconditionally surrender by the Ottoman Empire.  But that is only relevant to your claim that you KNOW for a fact that the territory had to be annexed before disposition is made.  You actually cannot find any international that requires that.
> 
> ...


Israel declared independence from whom?

With whom did Israel fight its war of independence?


----------



## MJB12741 (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



It was the 67 borders that allowed the Arab nations to unite to attempt to annihilate Israel.  Never again.  Deal with it.


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






]How about a LINK to these '67 borders that shows who signed for Israel and who signed for Palestine. The only link I can find clearly states that these lines are not to be taken as borders and refer to the ceasefire lines of the 6 days war. The land on the Israeli side of these lines includes all of the west bank, Golan heights, gaza and the Sinai.

 Israel will be only too happy to agree those "borders"


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 They did not need to as it was part of war booty and was signed over to them by the Ottomans. And it was theirs to give away unless you want to tell the rest of the former Ottoman lands that they are illegal.


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Because the UN who are the only people who could actually say it was implemented said it was implemented. You are not inany position to state that the UN did not have the authority to implement 181 under the terms of 181. It was an either/or term of reference so even though the arab muslims rejected 181 it did not matter as the Jews accepted it and it was implemented


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








The arab muslims rejected 181 and went to war instead, stealing Jerusalem and annexing the arab muslim proposed lands


----------



## Phoenall (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






They declared independence under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and the UN partition plan.  Just as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan declared independence under the Mandate system, who did they declare independence from

The combined armies of the arab league including Palestinian arab muslim militia and terrorists


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore, 

Quit being a wise ass.



P F Tinmore said:


> Now can we get back to my question that you have been ducking?


*(COMMENT)*

What is your question?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Quit being a wise ass.
> 
> ...


In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​
Do you have anything to prove otherwise?


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

State that declare independence are declaring a change in their status.  They are changing status from a "non-self-governing" entity to a "self-governing entity."



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel declared independence from whom?
> 
> With whom did Israel fight its war of independence?


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, the War of Independence was a "complex war."  


After the Declaration of Independence, the "Civil War" spilled-over into the War of Independence between Israeli Forces and the combined indigenous irregular forces (Holy War Army and Arab Army of Liberation).


Upon Declaring Independence, a Coalition of Arab Forces attacked.  The primary force elements came from the Arab League provided by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon with additional forces from Iraq and Saudi Arabia.  The Irregular Force from Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood) and volunteers from Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan joined in the assault.

 There was an Armistice put in place in 1949.  The war ended with Egypt and Jordan.  However the war is not yet been concluded between Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan.  The Muslim Brotherhood and the HAMAS are related and it appears that the war is not concluded with them.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, one more time.

The State of Palestine is defined as:



			
				Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
			
		

> _Affirms its 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 fulfills 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;
> *SOURCE:* *A/RES/67/19 4 DECEMBER 2012*





P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

In the context _(the proper context in which this statement was made) _the inference being made by the Palestinians is that the "Palestine" as surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers --- a lesser included, arbitrary geographic area, as determined by the Allied Powers, was somehow:

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

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​
There is no formal agreement, convention, resolution or treaty that stipulates or substantiates these claims made by the former enemy aligned Arab elements of WWI _(Central Powers)_, WWII _(Axis Powers)_, or the regional security threat by the Hostile Arab Palestinians _(HoAP)_ aligned with the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force _(PAIF) (Holy War Army or the Arab Liberation Army)_ that allocates sovereignty to the HoAP/PAIF of any surrendered territory.

There is a bit of an absurdity here in the HoAP claim. 

The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni _[killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence]_ and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by _Sicherheitsdienst_ (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [_establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians]_ Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
*SIDE NOTES:*
In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

When looking at this from a very practical standpoint, the Allied Powers do not normally bow to the demands made by non-aligned forces that fought on the side of enemy; especially the Axis Powers.  Palestine, from the time the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA - 1918) was established --- until --- the termination of the British Mandate (1948), was defined under the *Palestine Order in Council* as those "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  

The HoAP/PAIF have nothing comparable to this documentary evidence.  And in practice, the HoAP/PAIF have no historical past, for more than a thousand years, that they had sovereign control over any of the territory they claim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, one more time.
> 
> ...



When did the European colonists have sovereign control over any of the territory they claimed, prior to partition?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> State that declare independence are declaring a change in their status.  They are changing status from a "non-self-governing" entity to a "self-governing entity."
> 
> ...


There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, one more time.
> 
> ...


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

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​
You are still not showing proof that this is not true.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, one more time.
> 
> ...


_Affirms its *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 *fulfills 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;​
A lot of wishful thinking but nothing you can hang your hat on.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Oh Tinmore, what are we to do with you.  The borrom line is this.  Israel exists as a country & Israel is there to stay as a country, whatever it takes.  Cheer up & deal with it instead of being so miserable over what is reality.


----------



## montelatici (May 28, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


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



That's what the Rhodesians and white South Africans said.


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Why are you debating something that is not up for debate? The State of Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza/ The issue is not that we are not proving it to you, the issue is that you refuse to accept reality. 

Remember, Tinmore laws DO NOT apply to real life.


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What an incredibly dumb comparison.


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers never claimed sovereignty.



montelatici said:


> When did the European colonists have sovereign control over any of the territory they claimed, prior to partition?


*(COMMENT)*

The territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers.  The Ottoman Unconditional Surrender 1918 was the essentially the end of the Ottoman engagement in WWI.

Partition has nothing to do with the award or establishment of sovereignty.   The Anglo-Jordanian Treaty recognized Sovereignty of the Emir.  However, the Jewish exercised self-determination under UN Guidance; moving from non-self governing to self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> The Allied Powers never claimed sovereignty.
> 
> ...



So, why do you make a point of the fact that the indigenous Christians and Muslims had not had sovereignty? The European colonists hadn't it either.  Try to be consistent.


----------



## montelatici (May 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



What's the difference?


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



If you don't know the difference between Israelis & Israel and Rhodesians & Africa, then you have issues.


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...



There were no European colonists. That's part of your Palestinian propaganda campaign.


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

There is a possibility for some agreement here.



P F Tinmore said:


> There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.


*(COMMENT)*

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective.  They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated. 



P F Tinmore said:


> One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.


*(COMMENT)*

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits.  That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved.  In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN.  The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty.  In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​
Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view.  And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
Operational:  Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
Strategic:  A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term.  A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.
In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated.  Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose."  If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories.  Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.  

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution.  But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage.  Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions.   This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces.  The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF.  Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire.  While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict.  The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past.  While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory.  This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective.  It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake.  While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end.  It has continently been "Victorious."  Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



The only confused on here is you. These 'loose ends' that you speak of of are 'Tinmore pre requisites'. You have yet to provide any shred of evidence to back them up. Whereas Rocco and I have boatloads of proof to refute your crap. 
Not that we need any proof, as this whole debate is pointless. It's like debating whether the sky is blue or not.


----------



## montelatici (May 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



There is no difference.  All are European colonists.


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Only in your propaganda filled mind Monti.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is a possibility for some agreement here.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the dissertation, however, it did not address my post.


----------



## RoccoR (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Hummm.  I think that it directly discussed both your interrogatives.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > There is a possibility for some agreement here.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

And by no means is this a "dissertation" _(a new treatise)_.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm.  I think that it directly discussed both your interrogatives.
> 
> ...


You didn't address my post.


----------



## Hossfly (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


----------



## toastman (May 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I've already proved with links that Israel won the 1948 war. You provided nothing (as usual) to back up your points.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 28, 2015)

Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP.. 

From the link.. 
At a special meeting in Gaza on Thursday held on the occasion of Nakba Day, the Palestinian parliament stated that the entire "land of Palestine" is an Islamic endowment, and the Jews have no right to even a single inch of it.

Nakba Day is the day on which Arabs mourn what they view as the "disaster" of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. It is marked on May 14, the day in 1948 on which Israel became a state.

The parliament also stressed that the "right of return" is a sacred collective and private right and cannot be given up, and added that the Palestinians will never agree to the settlement of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" outside the territory of "Palestine" nor will they ever agree to recognize Israel.

I think this is largely inflammatory BS.. The Pali Parliarment has been pretty much AWOL since the Hamas-Fatah war.. And I'm not aware that it meets in GAZA. (not even sure if it meets at all anymore).. I'm CERTAIN that this sounds just like Hamas dogma. Certainly not that of the Abbas led faction. 

And it truly seems that a radio site cheering on Armageddon just might want to mix shit up on purpose. Carry on with ancient history. 

The FUTURE resides in Palestine and Israel realizing that peace and prosperity lies in SHARED investment in security and trade and socio-economic cooperation.. Hamas can go to hell. Under current MidEast conditions, An independent Palestine would last about a month before the ISIS flag was flying. Really need to get both sides to mutually recognize their precarious position and agree to mutual defense.


----------



## aris2chat (May 29, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP..
> 
> From the link..
> At a special meeting in Gaza on Thursday held on the occasion of Nakba Day, the Palestinian parliament stated that the entire "land of Palestine" is an Islamic endowment, and the Jews have no right to even a single inch of it.
> ...



The 'right of return' is why Abbas does not want refugees in Syria to get safe passage to the WB.  He would rather see them die than move to the WB.  A bit like Arafat not wanted refugee to leave Tel Zaatar.  He ordered them shot rather than leave.


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






Mandate of Palestine as enacted by the LoN in 1923, not to be confused with the British Mandate


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


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






When the LoN granted them sovereignty through the Mandate of Palestine in 1923, the same time they granted arab muslims sovereignty of trans Jordan through the mandate of Palestine 1923


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Winning land is a victory, and when the land is unclaimed it is not in breach of any UN resolution or its charter


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Irael's declaration of Independence 1948, and the LoN mandate of Palestine 1923


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 OFF TOPIC SPAMMING AGAIN


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...







 They did when they allowed Egypt and Jordan to annexe their lands and take control, that was them declaring their self determination the first time. So you see they give up their rights and then when they fall foul of their own stupidity they demand they be returned retrospectively


----------



## Phoenall (May 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...






 He just has to have the last word.............


----------



## MJB12741 (May 29, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP..
> ...



No Arab nation will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  How relieved they are to have Israel to deal with their Palestinians.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP..
> ...



Abbas is a competent leader, he knows he needs a functional govt before he can get all liberal  with an "immigration policy". They are currently lacking a viable govt to represent the claims of the "valid" Palestinians.


----------



## MJB12741 (May 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The election of Hamas as a governing body has hurt the Palestinians by dividing them into opposing factions killing their own people in record numbers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


They aren't killing their own people. They are killing US proxy forces.


----------



## toastman (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Link ?


----------



## RoccoR (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh for heaven's sake.



P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I'm confused now as to what you're saying.  "US PROXY FORCES?"   Who are we fighting and for what?  Who is defending what and for whom?  What is the agenda for this supposed proxy conflict?

Where did you get such an idea?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...


dayton forces gaza - Google Search


----------



## toastman (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Where is the link that says that the people that Hamas recently assassinated were U.S proxy forces? It's a very simple question.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You have to be really warped to say that.  That comment was almost certainly referring the brutality of Hamas in fighting with Fatah and the way they enforce their power in Gaza.  Maybe you were thinking something else, but if you think the Gazans that Hamas executes are all US proxies,  you just went into the tin hat detention ward.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2015)

toastman said:


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


Bush Support for “Regime Change” in the PA

It’s no secret that the Bush administration has been funneling money to Palestinian militias that are preparing to overthrow Hamas. On Monday, Condoleezza Rice announced that the US would resume “full assistance to the Palestinian government” and end the year long boycott to the people in the West Bank. The new aid—which could amount to as much as $86 million---will be used to shore up the PA security apparatus and pay the salaries of officials in the “emergency government.” The uncovering of the CIA documents in Gaza will cast a cloud over the administration’s largesse and make Abbas look like a Palestinian Karzai who gets financial treats from Washington to follow their diktats. 

Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was given the task of outlining the administration’s new policy vis-à-vis the Abbas’ “emergency government”. The Bush team had already decided the night before that they would throw their full support behind Abbas and his “unelected” clatter of pro-western stooges.

The CIA and Fatah spies quislings and the Palestinian Authority ​


----------



## RoccoR (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

"Dayton Forces???"  I assume you mean the composite team (a joint, international, and interagency team) made up of Canadians, British, and a Turkish personnel (including Americans of course)  --- sent to the Middle East to assist in the organization and operational performance of the Palestinian Authority's security forces.   

Your information is very dated.  The first Coordinator was LTG Kip Ward; replaced by LTG Dayton as the US Security Coordinator for Israel-Palestinian Authority until October 2010, when LTG Lieutenant General Robert Moeller took-over for two years --- followed by Vice Admiral Paul J. Bushong is the Coordinator.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

The United States Security Coordinator (USSC) trains the Presidential Guard (PAPG), Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF) and the Palestinian National Security Forces (NSF).  

The USSC mission (briefed to Congress in 2013) takes a three-pillar approach: 
• First, we assist the Palestinian Authority to professionalize their security forces. 
• Next, we engage with the Israelis & Palestinians on security initiatives that build trust and confidence. 
• Finally, we support other US and international whole-of-government efforts.​
This program is suppose to maintain law and order within PA Jurisdiction.  It is not a US proxy militia force, and it was never a force operationally under the Command of LTG Dayton, his predecessor, or any of the replacements.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2015)

When you excuse the brutality of Hamas with weak crap like this,  you cant get me to believe you actually care about the welfare of the Palestians. ANY state in that region faces SERIOUS security threats foreign and domestic.  When Gaza was cut loose to PA hands, it was REQUIRED to have support for their security training.  Its naive to believe that Hamas is adequately prepared to run the security and civil needs of a new nation state without bodies in the streets,


----------



## aris2chat (May 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> When you excuse the brutality of Hamas with weak crap like this,  you cant get me to believe you actually care about the welfare of the Palestians. ANY state in that region faces SERIOUS security threats foreign and domestic.  When Gaza was cut loose to PA hands, it was REQUIRED to have support for their security training.  Its naive to believe that Hamas is adequately prepared to run the security and civil needs of a new nation state without bodies in the streets,



They have proved they are not capable with the total failure of the the infrustructure.  They won't pay PA to keep the electricity on, the sewage system is almost nonexistant, water is contaminated, social service are provided by the UN in large part, they can't even pay their own employees, They steal supplies for construction so they can build illegal tunnel into Israel and Egypt, they let food and medicine expire rather than distribute it, they wage a loosing war against Israel which leads to destruction of property and death of civilians, they torture and kill their own people, they can't even control their own weapons.

In what way are they prepared to lead gaza or work with the PA in a unity government?


----------



## toastman (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Interesting. But you still didn't back up your claim. Not even close.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> "Dayton Forces???"  I assume you mean the composite team (a joint, international, and interagency team) made up of Canadians, British, and a Turkish personnel (including Americans of course)  --- sent to the Middle East to assist in the organization and operational performance of the Palestinian Authority's security forces.
> 
> ...


I use the term Dayton forces the way most people use Kleenex to mean a tissue of any brand. Of course there were lesser people involved but their names would be unrecognizable. So don't go around pointing at every excuse to dismiss my post.

This program is suppose to maintain law and order within PA Jurisdiction.​
That is what the liars will tell you. Their purpose is to trample on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or any other resistance or protest against the occupation. They do little or nothing to protect the Palestinians.

When Israel kidnapped over 30 members of parliament and cabinet ministers, these security forces were nowhere to be found. The loss of Palestinian life or property is not their concern.

There are problems, however, with the way they carry out their "duties." They spy on people without court issued warrants. They arrest people who have violated no law and without court issued warrants. They hold people without charge, trial, or legal representation. They torture people and several have been tortured to death.

These are all violations of their constitution and the rights of the people.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been telling aides that he plans to reject some $150 million in federal money earmarked for Palestinian security. Why the Palestinians might reject U.S. aid - The Washington Post​
He who pays the piper calls the tune.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh for heaven's sake.
> 
> ...


----------



## toastman (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



"Their purpose is to trample on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or any other resistance or protest against the occupation"

Still peddling that 'resistance' garbage, now are you? Show me some specific examples of Hamas 'resisting' .

"The loss of Palestinian life or property is not their concern."  
This describes Hamas very well. They continue to attack Israel knowing very well that the only thing that will come out od it is death and destruction in Gaza

"They do little or nothing to protect the Palestinians."
Again, this describes Hamas very well. Instead of building underground bomb shelters, they build tunnels for themselves only that are used to attack Israelis. 
Anyone with a brain knows that Hamas wants and needs Palestinian civilian deaths in order to maintain their 'eternal victim' status.
Seriously though, ask yourself, why did they not build underground shelters for their people??


----------



## aris2chat (May 30, 2015)

toastman said:


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



shelters would not be needed if hamas had not fired on Israel, or kick fatah out of gaza by force


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2015)

aris2chat said:


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


Fatah lost the elections.

You must have missed that.


----------



## toastman (May 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


And ?? Are you denying the Hamas - Fatah war took place? 

After Hamas won, Fatah members were executed and removed from Gaza. Very democratic, kill your competition even though you won 

Speaking of elections, why hasn't there been any in Gaza since Hamas came into power?


----------



## Slyhunter (May 30, 2015)

Show me a single Palestinian peace proposal that allows for a contiguous Israel in the Middle East intacted.


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







Not all, in fact very few are anything but civilians


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Hardly valid links are they as the only one halfway trustworthy is from 2004.


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







at least 6 years since Bush had any say, you are clutching at straws again


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 And still no valid link supporting your claims, making them void like the space between your ears


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...







 So that gives hamas the right to execute the losers does it ? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## MJB12741 (May 31, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



As for Palestinian terrorist groups killing each other, I support them.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 31, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Why do you stay here & suffer in the USA with our American politics when you can go live in some Muslim country that agree with your politics?


----------



## RoccoR (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm wondering if this will not be anything but helpful to both the US and interloping Arab and Persian extremist in the region.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > These are all violations of their constitution and the rights of the people.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine (the State of) is parasitic by nature.  It has not proven it can stand alone.  The consequences of such a move will be interesting.  If such a move results in the collapse of the Palestinian Authority Security Forces, what impact would that have on the people of Palestine (alla 1988)?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 31, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm wondering if this will not be anything but helpful to both the US and interloping Arab and Persian extremist in the region.
> 
> ...


Bullshit, Rocco.

Palestine was fine before the criminals came out of Europe and stole, bombed/bulldozed their productive assets.


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







From 7 years ago so hardly up to date, try and keep up with current events


----------



## flacaltenn (May 31, 2015)

Using ancient joint security agreements that were made with the PA prior to the hijacking by Hamas are a weak excuse for the brutality. There are no current such agreements to my knowledge that involve Hamas in the Gaza. And probably haven't been any for many years. 

Every citizen executed in the streets by Hamas probably hates America. Maybe they hate Hamas. But it does not make them an American proxy soldier.. 

This split in the PA is the LARGEST reason there is no current path to peace and co-existance.


----------



## Phoenall (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Because it was empty and could hardly exist back then, that is why the Ottomans invited the Jews to free the land and make it fertile. The criminals were the arab muslims that came shortly after thinking they could steal the land of the Jews, and found the new Jews were tougher than the old ones.


----------



## RoccoR (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not sure I go along with this supposition.





Muslim soldiers of the Handschar Waffen SS 
reading a pamphlet written by Grand Mufti of 
Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini titled 'Islam 
and Judaism.' They wear distinctive Handschar 
tarboosh headgear, and insignias (scimitars 
and swastikas) on their lapels.




Haj Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler on 28 November 1941.​
It is --- rather--- a subjective evaluation, as to who is the "criminal" and who was doing "fine."

Even before WWII, during the First World War, many Arab Leaders such as Hajj Amin al-Husseini _(who later became the first President of the All Palestine Government)_ were aligned with enemy powers and became officers in the Army of the Ottoman Empire.  Even Ahmed Hilmi Pasha (_First Prime Minister of the All Palestine Government)_ was in the serve of the Sultan and attained the rank of a General Officer in the Ottoman Army.

Oddly enough, the Commander of the Arab Liberation Army fighting against the Israelis in the 1948 War of Independence, was General Fawzi al-Qawuqji, an Ottoman Military Academy Grad, served in WWI against the British at Beersheba, and was awarded the German Iron Cross while in the service of General Otto von Kreiss.  During WWII, General al-Qawuqji was a colonel of the Wehrmacht serving with the _Sonderstab _F.

Similarly the co-founder and co-leader of the Army of the Holy War, Hasan Salama, which also mustered against the Israelis in the 1948 War of Independence, was a WWII Member of the German _Sicherheitsdienst_ with service in Palestine against the British.

Yes!  It is all subjective.  I'm very sure that all Arab Palestinians are proud of their heritage of the 20th Century.


P F Tinmore said:


> Bullshit, Rocco.
> 
> Palestine was fine before the criminals came out of Europe and stole, bombed/bulldozed their productive assets.


*(COMMENT)*

You could be a 50 year career felon and have a soul clean enough to be nominated for sainthood in comparison with these prominent Arab Palestinian.  

In the beginning of the migration to the Middle East, (at the end of WWI), the Jewish people were not stealing, bombing or bulldozing productive assets.  Although in recent times (nearly a century later) there is little question that the war has escalated.

Since the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the Arab Palestinian has not been on the political right-side of any major issue in the world.  Statistically, it is not likely that they are on the right side of anything today.  Given the linage of the Arab Palestinian since the opening of the 20th Century, Arabs that live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.  If the Grand Mufti had - had his way, you would all be speaking German and would have heard of Muslim/Islam only in an historical sense.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat (May 31, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure I go along with this supposition.
> 
> ...



how does any pro-palestinian on this or any mixed forum not know this yet?  It has to have been explained in detail at least once a month if not more.

Mufti=anti-semitic hate=holocaust=violence against jews and Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 31, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure I go along with this supposition.
> 
> ...


Relevance to my post?


----------



## MJB12741 (May 31, 2015)

aris2chat said:


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



Some things never change.  Even today, Palestinians will be Palestinians.


----------



## toastman (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Only in your mind were they criminals. Remember, Jews (local and European) were attacked and Massacred several times before any Arab was killed. 

The 'Palestinians', are responsible for their own demise. The sooner they realize that, the sooner they can get out of the hole thy have dug themselves in.


----------



## RoccoR (May 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is all about the perspective that you project.



P F Tinmore said:


> Relevance to my post?


*(COMMENT)*

You are attempting to suggest that the Arab Palestinian behaviors have been "good, acceptable, or satisfactory" and their life style and cultural ways were "of high quality."



			
				P F TINMORE said:
			
		

> Palestine was fine before the criminals came out of Europe and stole, bombed/bulldozed their productive assets.



Your suggesting a cause and effect.  The effect was that the invited Jewish Immigration have the effect of altering the life style the Arab Palestinian from one of good, acceptable, or satisfactory to bad, unacceptable and unsatisfactory --- and turning the culture ways from one of high quality to one of little quality.

My response was to suggest an alternative.  That the Arab Palestinian was not a culture that exhibited these positive behaviors, but a culture that was more aligned with embracing that of the post-Weimar Republic; which became the very things the world would come to associate with pure evil today.  The Arab Palestinian sought-out and advocated the persecution of the Jews as a matter of policy, just as the Axis Powers --- and encourage the furtherance of these anti-Semitic behaviors.  This was not forced upon the Arab Palestinian; on the contrary.  The highest official of Islamic law in the Region (the Grand Mufti) went to Germany to embrace the architect of anti-Semitism.

Whatever you might think of the Jewish People, the Arab Muslims of Palestine were what they came-out to be, well before the Jewish immigrated under the Mandate.  

The Relevance!  Well the Arab Palestinian became and garnered exactly the outcome they deserved.  Nothing the Jewish Immigrant did was affected the behaves or the fait of the Arab Palestinian.  They did that all on their own.

While no culture or people are perfect; with points in history that are nothing to be proud of, the Palestinian should be careful in suggesting that they _(who fought for the Ottoman and the Axis)_ are the victim of the Allied Powers and the Jewish Immigration.  The Arab Palestinian are what they are; _(to barrow a phrase from Led Zeppelin)_ crying won't help you and praying won't do you no good. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (May 31, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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



You are a liar.   

Ottoman Palestine was 90% or more Christian and Muslim as late as 1896. Luckily, there is film documentary evidence.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 31, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is all about the perspective that you project.
> 
> ...


You are attempting to suggest that the Arab Palestinian behaviors have been "good, acceptable, or satisfactory" and their life style and cultural ways were "of high quality."​
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


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







Not according to the Ottomans that tried to migrate arab muslims 3 times to Palestine, and were shocked when they all moved out after 6 months.

Your film shows nothing apart from what you want it to show making it invalid. This on the other hand shows the truth and destroys your words

Jews and Arabs in Palestine to 1939

At the beginning of the century the Jews in Palestine numbered around 70,000. They were around ten percent of the population, * and in **Jerusalem** they outnumbered the Arab Muslims and Christians*.  They were ruled by the Ottoman Turks, and neither they nor the Arab Muslims around them yearned much for national independence. The Jews already had a sense of independence. They thrived in communities in many of Palestine's towns, and *they welcomed those few immigrant Jews who were trickling into Palestine*, mostly from Europe.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






YES

Jews and Arabs in Palestine to 1939

 Arab frustrations produced attacks on Jews – easier targets than the British army. In Jerusalem in 1920 five Jews were killed and eleven wounded. In response, Jews in Jerusalem organized a self-defense league. The British forbade the carrying of arms and imprisoned the group's leader. Jews set up a clandestine organization for defense, called the Haganah, which had only minor successes in 1921 when Arab attacks became more intense. In Jerusalem, attacks by Arabs attacks against Jews intensified. In  Jaffa, Arabs killed forty Jews and wounded around two hundred, and the attacks on Jews spread to other towns.
The British were concerned about the hearts and minds of the Arabs across their vast holdings in the Middle East, and they responded to the unrest by trying to please the Arabs. They suspended Jewish immigration and "redefined" the Balfour Declaration. In January 1922, they named al-Hajj Amin al-Huseini permanent president and mufti (interpreter of Islamic law) of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


That was after not before. Please try to keep up.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






After what exactly as you did not stipulate a cut off date, as my link shows the arab muslims attacked and murdered Jews as recorded by the mandatory in 1920. This was before the migration of Zionist Jews some years later


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


You are late.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> ...You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.



True...







Which raises the question...

"_Why are Arabs still occupying the West Bank and Gaza?_"

These occupiers need to leave Israeli territory.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I wrote my response based on your comment of Posting # 310.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > You are attempting to suggest that the Arab Palestinian behaviors have been "good, acceptable, or satisfactory" and their life style and cultural ways were "of high quality."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The behaviors are what they are.  

Alliance and support to the enemy Central Power - Ottoman Empire.
Riots against Jewish Immigrants.
The Establishment of the Black Hand.
Terrorist Attacks.
Alliance and support to the enemy Axis Powers - Germany.
Formation of the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army under former enemy officers.
These are just examples of the behaviors to be considered when looking at the progression of consequences. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Last time I looked 1920 was earlier than 1939


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I wrote my response based on your comment of Posting # 310.
> 
> ...


How much of this was not a response to the Zionists?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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








None of it and you cant produce a link claiming that it was all down to the zionists


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is all about the perspective that you project.
> 
> ...


Your suggesting a cause and effect. The effect was that the invited Jewish Immigration...​
The Zionists were not invited. They lobbied to be allowed to go to Palestine.

There was no "immigration."  Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Look at the facts.

If it was not for the Zionists there would not have been a Black Hand. There would be no PLO, no Fatah, no PFLP, no Hamas, and no Islamic Jihad.

Everything that all of those people did would not have happened.


----------



## toastman (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



There was no country to be part of. Arabs did not have sovereignty over ANY of the land.


----------



## toastman (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



That's a REALLY big if.

Here's another way to look at it. If the Arabs weren't such hateful bloodthirsty Jew haters, there would not be so much of a problem.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Read the Mandate of Palestine and see where you are sadly wrong


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 How can you say that without any proof, as they could have existed under different names. The Zionists are not to blame for all the problems in Palestine, but the arab muslims are to blame for most of them


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, let's examine these questions.



P F Tinmore said:


> How much of this was not a response to the Zionists?


*(COMMENT)*

The issue here is:  response.  The Jewish people immigrated both lawfully and peacefully.

None of it was in response to Article 4 immigrant violence on the part of the Jewish.  It started because the Jewish were organized and productive --- Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. 



P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionists were not invited. They lobbied to be allowed to go to Palestine.
> 
> There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish Immigrants came to the *territory under Mandate* according to Article 6:  "Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage."  And yes, a fragment of what you said is true:  with the intend to execute the Balfour Declaration as stated in the Mandate --- "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."



			
				Palestine Order in Council:  84.-- IMMIGRATION said:
			
		

> (i) The High Commissioner shall confer upon all matters relating to the regulation of immigration with a Committee consisting of not less than one-half of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, and provision shall be made by Order in Council for investing the said Committee with all such powers and authorities and otherwise for the constitution and conduct of the business of the said Committee, as may be necessary to carry this Article into effect.
> 
> (ii) In the event of any difference of opinion between the High Commissioner and the said Committee upon any such matter as aforesaid, the High Commissioner shall make a full report on the subject to a Secretary of State, whose decision thereon shall be final.
> *SOURCE:* *Palestine Order in Council *



The decision to facilitate IMMIGRATION was a decision made by the *Allied Powers in  San Remo (1920)*.  It was a decision made with a clear understanding of the intent behind *Article 22 in the Covenant*;  and the understanding to the grounds for reconstituting their national home. 

All the decisions made --- relative to "immigration matters" ---* were not in the hands* of the Arab Palestinian or the Jewish People.  Matters related to immigration rested entirely upon the shoulders of the  High Commissioner and the Mandatory (HM's Secretary of State).



P F Tinmore said:


> Look at the facts.
> 
> If it was not for the Zionists there would not have been a Black Hand. There would be no PLO, no Fatah, no PFLP, no Hamas, and no Islamic Jihad.
> 
> Everything that all of those people did would not have happened.


*(COMMENT)*

If it were not for the Arab Palestinians ability to rationally accept the decision of the Allied Powers, and help the Territorial Mandate to properly extend a helping hand for those that came;  "Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories."
 - See more at: Faisal-Weizmann agreement Non-UN document 3 January 1919 

The Ottoman Empire did not surrender the territory to which the Mandate applied to any Hostile Arab Palestinians  --- NOT:

Abdullah Azzam Brigades
Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades
Abu Nidal Organization
Al-'Asifah
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades
Al-Quds Brigades
Arab Liberation Front
Arab Palestine Organization
Army of Islam (Gaza Strip)
Army of the Holy War
As-Sa'iqa
Black Hand (Mandatory Palestine)
Black September Organization
Fatah
Fatah al-Intifada
Fatah Hawks
Fatah Special Operations Group
Force 14
Force 17
Hamas
Holy Jihad Brigades
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades
Palestine Liberation Army
Palestine Liberation Front
Palestinian National and Islamic Forces
Palestinian National Salvation Front
Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Special Command
Popular Resistance Committees
Popular Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine
​Certainly none of these organization represented any legitimate authority over such matters in the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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




"The Zionists were not invited."

Yes, they were.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...There was no "immigration."  Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.


Trouble with that premise is, there was no '_Palestine_' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > ...You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.
> ...



You are posting a Hasbara map copyrighted in 2005?  What's the point?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...There was no "immigration."  Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.
> ...



Of course there was a Palestine.  It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations.  What are you talking about?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


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


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 ​
Indeed.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


To demonstrate what the Jews of Israel want...

To demonstrate what they're going to get...

To demonstrate just how close they already are to achieving just that...


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


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


When you can credibly identify an autonomous, self-governing nation, recognized by a majority of world governments, then you'll have something to wave about...

Trouble is, no such thing existed, pre-1948...


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate.



montelatici said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine was NOT necessarily given provisional recognition by the Covenant; but it had potential.

The Covenant never mentions Palestine even once in the text.  What it says is:



			
				EXCERPT ---- Article 22 Covenant of League of Nations said:
			
		

> *Certain communities* formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone.* The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919



The word "certain" implies "not all."  If they would have meant that all communities were provisionally recognized, then the would have said: "ALL."  But they did not.  In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, certainly Trans-Jordan, which was promised to the Sharif of Mecca as a Kingdom for one of his sons, was "provisionally recognized."

Second, the Arab Higher Committee was demanding the entire expanse under the Mandate _(from the River to the Sea)_.  Nothing of the sort was promised in the Covenant.

*The Political History of Palestine under*

*British Administration*
*-----*
*Memorandum by*
*His Britannic Majesty's Government*
*presented in 1947*
*to the United Nations Special Committee*
*on Palestine*
*Published at Jerusalem, 1947*​
87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
*“To put it in one sentence, we cannot-in Palestine as it now is-both concede the Arab claim to self-government and secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”​*​
88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty’s Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.​
“Manifestly”, the Commission wrote, *“the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. *The answer to the question ‘which of them in the end will govern Palestine?’ must surely be ‘Neither.’ We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it.”​
89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”​
129. The twelve members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, working with a time limit of 120 days, held their first meeting in Washington on 4th January, 1946, and signed an unanimous Report at Lausanne on 20th April.​
The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-​
I. *That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine*​
II. *That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.*​
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.​
Third, the Arab Palestinians never stipulated that they were able to "stand alone;" nor did they practically demonstrate the required criteria.

It was not intended, that the remainder of the Mandate be dominated by Arab Palestinian rule.  Palestine _(less the Article 25 carve-out for Jordan)_ was not going to be totally ruled under Arab Sovereignty.

The Question is:  What are YOU talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, let's examine these questions.
> 
> ...


The decision to facilitate IMMIGRATION was a decision made by the *Allied Powers in San Remo (1920)*.​
The Balfour Declaration was the product of 20 years of Zionist lobbying. The Zionists lobbied to have it inserted into San Remo and the Mandate. They lobbied to have Britain selected to be the Mandate.

To say that they were "invited" is ludicrous.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is not accurate.
> 
> ...


87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
Indeed, their stupid plan was a big flop. So they planned for partition which was also a big flop.

When Britain stuck the UN with the problem, the UN suggested partition that had already flopped and they knew it was going to flop too but they did it anyway and it flopped.

It is amazing how much stupidity can be assembled into such a small group of people


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

I. *That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine*

II. *That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.*"

Isn't that precious.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, I'm not being "ludicrous" at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Balfour Declaration was the product of 20 years of Zionist lobbying. The Zionists lobbied to have it inserted into San Remo and the Mandate. They lobbied to have Britain selected to be the Mandate.
> 
> To say that they were "invited" is ludicrous.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't dispute that the Jewish Organizations "lobbied" in their best interest.  They would be fools not to put their best foot forward.  Having said that, don't believe for a moment that the Arab Higher Committee was not in there, mixing it up, with their campaign to get what they wanted.  Both sides were lobbying and both sides put forth their agenda.  That is just the politics in play.

As to "invited!"  Anyone can knock on the door.  Whether the Allied Powers let them in the door is a decision made by them.  Obviously, if you think the Jewish Organization got the better deal, only means that in your view, the Jewish had the better argument and sales pitch.

Crying won't help you and praying won't do you no good!​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is not accurate.
> 
> ...


Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

Now Rocco, the facts, not your fantasies:

"MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object.

The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has been shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . .

As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises.* When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. *It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.

In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”

367 [4996]

It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11.

*It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .*

During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League.

C. OF K. November 30, 1920.

End/ (Not Continued)


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

It is what it is --- right up to today.



P F Tinmore said:


> 87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​
> Indeed, their stupid plan was a big flop. So they planned for partition which was also a big flop.
> 
> When Britain stuck the UN with the problem, the UN suggested partition that had already flopped and they knew it was going to flop too but they did it anyway and it flopped.
> ...





montelatici said:


> I. *That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine*​
> II. *That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.*"​
> Isn't that precious.


*(COMMENT)*

Whatever you think should have happened, it is today we have to deal with --- you just can turn-on the old HG Wells Time Machine and play the down over.  There is no instant replay.  

Maybe, had the Arab Palestinian employed a different strategy, the outcomes would have been different.  But that is Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, which we all know doesn't change the actual outcome in Sunday's game.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian has another chance to do something different then to select combat as the mediation method of choice.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

_"Whatever you think should have happened, it is today we have to deal with"
_
So the hostile jew invader (HJI) doesn't need to compromise, only those that the invader stole the land and homes from.  Great deal Rocco.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.



P F Tinmore said:


> Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.
> 
> I didn't see that in there.


*(COMMENT)*

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine."  So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in *Posting #342 *was that:  "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations."  And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you are trying to change the argument.
> 
> ...



No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate.  In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 1, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

This is a 1920 Memo that opens with:  "A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required."  Whatever this Memo (as a position paper) may imply, this was taken into account and the Mandate in its final form was later approved.



montelatici said:


> A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required.
> *
> When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. *I
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Of course there will be, in any such undertaking, some apprehension.

Yes --- there was a historic connection recognized.

And of course, Lord Balfour leaves HM's Government the escape clause on the matter of concessions.  But as all good diplomats do, he makes it a double-edged sworn.  HM's Government can avoid concessions on either side. 

But as we all know, when this was written, it was just short of two years later before the Mandate was adopted. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 1, 2015)

It really doesn't matter Rocco.  The European colonial project for Palestine was not digestible for even the other rabid colonizers.  There was no historical connection, and everyone knew it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 1, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> It is what it is --- right up to today.
> 
> ...


Maybe, had the Arab Palestinian employed a different strategy,...​
What  other strategy do you think would have worked?

Times are changing and different strategies are being pursued. And success is looking promising.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






The point is the map uses the co-ordinates of the LoN Mandate for Palestine grant of land in Palestine for the Jewish national home. So it does not matter what date the copyright goes on ( which can change every year under copyright laws to keep the intellectual rights of the literary work ) what matters is the data used to draw the map.

 Are you also saying that the map of trans Jordan is also hasbara, which means that Jordan can not exist under your criteria


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


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







There was no nation of Palestine until 1988, and you and the rest of the islamomoron propagandists have failed to prove otherwise. Now produce the LoN treaty that gave Palestine provisional statehood, remembering that trans Jordan was part of the Mandate for palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...






No as it only gave the population the citizenship of the mandatory power in Palestine. Which is why they were citizens of British mandated Palestine. As these pictures show


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 The arab muslims lobbied to have two minor arab princes made kings of their own nations in the mandate, is that not also ludicrous ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







The first partition gave the arab muslims the majority of Palestine, and that was acceptable. What was never acceptable was the Jews owning land in Palestine and having a national home, even after the then leader of the arab muslims had agreed to The Jews having a small part of Palestine. So as any sane intelligent person can see the problem has always been one created by the arab muslims through greed and religious commands


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I. *That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine*
> 
> II. *That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.*"
> 
> Isn't that precious.







And what is the arab aspirations other than for all of Palestine to be ruled by arabs. You keep forgetting that to meet with the above rules trans Jordan was created as arab Palestine, and the remainder was Jewish Palestine.

Read the Mandate of Palestine which spells this out very clearly, and shows that your claims of only 22% of the land is or was Palestine prior to 1924


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It really doesn't matter Rocco.  The European colonial project for Palestine was not digestible for even the other rabid colonizers.  There was no historical connection, and everyone knew it.







 Nor was the European colonial project for the Americas, which if you really believed that it was wrong to invade and colonise then you would have given up your property and citizen rights in favour of the First Nations.
There is plenty of historical connections to the land of Israel by the jEWS OF THE WORLD, there are no historical connections appertaining to islam. Even the al aqsa mosque was not built until 35 years after the false prophet died.


NOW WILL YOU SHOW YOUR SHAME AT BEING A TWO FACED HYPOCRITR THAT IS PROUD OF THEIR PART IN THE ETHNIC CLEANSING AND GENOCIDE OF THE FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE YET RACIALLY ATTACKS THE JEWS WHO LIVE IN THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Now Rocco, the facts, not your fantasies:
> 
> "MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].
> 
> ...







 So not a legally binding document now has precedence over a treaty.    So much for your " I never lie" when you produce this sort of document that does not even have a link to the source, are you afraid that it will be used against you when it shows you have cherry picked tiny parts of it again


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 It did not mention Palestine, just as it did not mention many other places under Mandates. Remember that the LoN mandates were all over the world and not just in Palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> _"Whatever you think should have happened, it is today we have to deal with"
> _
> So the hostile jew invader (HJI) doesn't need to compromise, only those that the invader stole the land and homes from.  Great deal Rocco.







 Does the same not go for you being a HOSTILE ITALIAN CHRISTIAN who stole the lands and homes from First Nations people.  You cant berate the Jews for what you think they have done when you have done much worse yourself.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> ...No, Palestine had *provisional* statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate.  In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.


"*provisional*" statehood?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha !!! 

Uhhhhh... yeah... I had an old girlfriend or two to whom I was "*provisionally*" committed... I got what *I* wanted... *they* got *most* of what *they* wanted... except *real* 'statehood'.

In the end, they figured it out, and moved on... making room for the *real* 'statehoodl' which followed (which involved someone different and which looked nothing like their *un-realized* vision).

"Provisional" statehood?

Is that the best you've got, boy?

Either you're a state, or you're not.

Either the so-called Palestinians were a recognizable people (a tribe, an ethnicity, etc.) or they were not - and they were not - a ragtag and diverse collection of tribals drifting into the region in the century or so spanning 1850-1950, to work for newly-arrived Jewish settler-farms and shops... mixed with some long-term residents of the region.

Either the so-called Palestinians were an autonomous, self-governing polity or they were not - and they were not - they've never been numerous enough or competent enough to obtain and sustain self-rule or home-rule.

And - given their scattered and diverse origins and status - and given their political incompetency - others (the LoN, the Brits, the UN, et al) made their decisions for them, like the little children they were (and still are) in a political context.

Hell, they only hold two postage-stamp -sized slivers of land - the West Bank and Gaza - and they still can't hold themselves together - and have been fighting tooth-and-nail (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah) amongst themselves and hate each other almost as much as they hate the Jews of Israel.

Who gives a shit, what they want, and who gives a shit, how badly they twist and warp and try (and fail) to re-write history, to suit their purposes?

They're under-performers and oath-breakers and killers of their own civilian men, women and children.

They're losers.

To hell with them.

Literally.

They've lost.

Years ago.

Time to stop beating their Neanderthal skulls against the wall.

Time to leave.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


It is, but at least the people were not kicked out of their homes.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


That is not the point but keep slinging that shit.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > ...No, Palestine had *provisional* statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate.  In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.
> ...


They've lost.​
Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues.

Israel hasn't won shit.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Like they were in 1929 do you mean when the arab muslims kicked the Jews out of their homes in Safed and Hebron. Or the eviction by force of Jews in 1949 from Jerusalem, west bank and gaza.

Take the blinkers of they spoil your world view.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






It is the whole point and you are too hateful to accept it. The problems did not start in 1967, 1948, 1931,1929, 1923 or 1875. They started in 635C.E. when Mohamed went on a witch hunt to steal the land and property of the Jews in Medina. He issued the command to "KILL THE JEWS" and that is what the muslims have been doing since.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either.  Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Hezbollah isn't even Palestinian, but rather Lebanese.  Israel pulled out of Lebanon 15 years ago, so I'm not sure what they're fighting against.  And their name means "party of god", which just goes to show that, in the Middle East, you can't separate politics and religion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


So, for over a thousand years no Jews attempted to reclaim their land?

Then a bunch of Europeans who had no ancestors from the land claimed it to be theirs.


----------



## toastman (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood. 
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.


----------



## toastman (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


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



What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again. 
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 If it is not disputed then you can give the exact date that Israel occupied Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






Nor did any arab muslim, until the LoN made the National Home of the Jews a possibility and suddenly they had owned the land for over 2000 years. Now arab muslims that had never even seen Palestine are claiming they lived there for eternity.

 You forget that under International law of 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty of 22% of Palestine, at the same time arab muslims were granted 78% of Palestine.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> > They've lost.
> 
> 
> Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues. Israel hasn't won shit.



If you say so, Tinny...

Trouble is, your (side's) own propaganda maps tell us a far different story...







And the beat-down that Hamas just received last summer...






...put a cap in their ass.

By any sane standard, that's a loss...

Then again, I keep forgetting that the beneficiaries of your _fifth-columnist_ advocacy are not 'sane'...

So, it becomes a Mad Dog Hunt, rather than a War...

An equally acceptable End-Game approach.

The Reconquista continues apace...

Annexation and consolidation continue...

The universe continues to unfold as it should.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 2, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Toast, making things up doesn't make them true.  Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong.  Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation.  The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'. 

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.


"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision.  Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.


----------



## toastman (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



"making things up doesn't make them true"

What the hell do you think I've been trying to tell for for the last several months ??? Making up crap is what you do every time you post here.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

toastman said:


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


I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 2, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



I only post fact.  You only post propaganda.  That's a fact.


----------



## toastman (Jun 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Not only are you a massive propagandist , but you are clearly a uneducated moron. I would be surprised if you have a high school diploma. 

Sorry Monti, but you truly are a dumbass ! BIG time !


----------



## toastman (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You did make up the 'acquiring land' crap and claim it was needed for Israel to declare independence. 

"It is part of the final status negotiations" Can you post it ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in.  But...



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Clarification #1:  The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II).  It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2:  The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."  The Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Arab Claim:  That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.
These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor.  The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The first is consequence of unconditional *War reparations* for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government.  Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated.  While such _war reparations_ usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement _(and Egypt and Jordan settled separately)_ than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands.   Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened.  _(Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region.  Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition.  Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)_ 

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 2, 2015)

toastman said:


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





RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in.  But...
> 
> ...


WTF.


----------



## toastman (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Did you not understand the question?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well,



P F Tinmore said:


> WTF.


*(COMMENT)*

You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?

And you don't think that Lebanon and Jordan are not on the ISIS menu ISIS, do you? 

Given enough time, maybe Israel will not have to continue occupation, if the Radical Islamic Movements continue their successes.

You cannot look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict outcome in isolation of what is happening around them.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 3, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well,
> 
> ...



You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?​
Of course not. It is Israel's war.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN.  And the letter said no such thing did it, so it is you reading things that just are not there so you can argue from your Catholic Jew Hatred pulpit. As history has proven the arab muslims are still not capable of free determination and of forming a working government capable of allowing them to stand on their own feet. This was the case in 1920, 1948, 1967, 1988 and now 2015, unless you can show a time when they did manage to stand on their own ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 And possession is 9 tenths of the law


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






Wrong way round again freddy boy you only ever post propaganda, and then stop using it once it is taken apart and shown to be different to what the rest of the link states.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Who declared war originally ?  And give a verifiable link to prove it ?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> ...And possession is 9 tenths of the law


More like *10* tenths, in this case... all the impotent whining in the world to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's what comes of the *Nakba* - a.k.a. "*The Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948*" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The lesson?

"*He who pisses his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day*."

( "_A coward dies a thousand deaths - a brave man dies but once._" )

The shit-head Palestinians probably should have stood their ground while they could, rather than running like rabbits and trusting that their so-called noble Arab brethren would honor their promises to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean on their behalf, while they hid behind the skirts of their women in refugee camps.

Effective title to the land has changed, through victory on the battlefield.

If you care to dispute the title, you must resort to the same court.

Battle.

Feel free to try.

Again.

Each time you(r side) try, the coast of failure grows exponentially, doesn't it?

One clear indicator of insanity? Repeating the same behaviors over and over again, expecting a different result each time.

Foolish Palestinian Neanderthals.

Leave.

Or wither on the vine and die.

Either outcome it acceptable.

The choice is yours.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Youir argument has just been taken apart and proven false, is what


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN.​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 3, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in.  But...
> 
> ...


Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​
Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 Mandate for Palestine and the link monte always uses to show that the land of Palestine was never to be just arab or Jewish


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Indeed, that was my question.


The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries. The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders No Such Borders Ever Existed


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Excellent point.  As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


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







 What is really meant when they say pre 1967 borders is the borders envisioned in the UN partition plan. This would never suit the free world so they hide it away behind double speak, but far too many islamomorons have let the cat out of the bag and now the world is seeing their duplicity


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 3, 2015)

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence.  All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary.  And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.  The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.



MJB12741 said:


> Excellent point.  As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?





Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice.  They were not involved in the Peace negotiations.  However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. 
without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C".  Israeli controlled Area "C."   "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.   The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue.  The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere.  Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:



			
				Palestine Liberation Organization - Negotiation Affairs Department said:
			
		

> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> ...


[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "_Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their* territory occupied since 1967*;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

_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*;
 "_Affirms its 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*."
This confuses the issue.  The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).  

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented.  So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 3, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


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


Do you mean by Pali's their unelected so called leadership.

Many people believe in the '67 borders because that is the BS they have heard their entire lives. Every map you can find shows Israel inside those fake borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 3, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence.  All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary.  And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.  The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.
> 
> ...


...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 3, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 4, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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



There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians.  LONG LIVE HAMAS!


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 4, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


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






 There will never be two nations as long as muslims worship allah, there is the problem


----------



## montelatici (Jun 4, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


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




Great.  The one-state solution is here.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 4, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...







 Correct the state of Israel. Let the arab muslims go back to Jordan where they belong.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 4, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



The Muslims and Christians of Palestine aren't going anywhere.  They will live in a single state where they will be the majority.  Let's see how long the Jews can prop up Apartheid.

"*Jews Now Minority in Israel and Territories"*

 Proponents worry that if Israel continues to control the Palestinian territories, with or without formal annexation, the different birthrates of Jews and Arabs will eventually result in Jews being a minority in the territory under Israeli control. At that point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state — or, alternatively, will be a Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority that is disenfranchised because of its ethnic identity. There’s a word for that. I won’t say it, but I’ll note that it’s Afrikaans in origin........
How far off such a situation might be is a topic of considerable debate. Some saythe threshold will be crossed within a decade or less. Others suggest a longer timeline is possible. A few on the right believe there’s no threat at all, either because Jewish and Arab fertility rates are converging or because Palestinian population figures are inflated . By and large, though, demography appears to be a very mainstream worry .

Well, worry no more. It turns out we’re there already. Comparing the annual Rosh Hashanah population report from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, released September 2, with the midyear (July 1) population figures for the West Bank andGaza in the CIA World Factbook,* it turns out that Jews are now (as of Rosh Hashanah) outnumbered by Arabs under Israeli sovereignty by a grand total of 50,827. *So the question is no longer whether or when the Jewish state will feature a minority ruling a majority. The question now is what to do about it."

Jews Now Minority in Israel and Territories - Opinion Forward.com


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 4, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 5, 2015)

As long as the Palestinian squatters are allowed to remain on Israel's land there will be no peace.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 5, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> As long as the Palestinian squatters are allowed to remain on Israel's land there will be no peace.



Well there will never be peace then and eventually the majority will rule, that's how things work.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 5, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Palestinian squatters are allowed to remain on Israel's land there will be no peace.
> ...



So right you are.  Once Israel finds a way to send all Palestinians squatters without titles or deeds to the land they stole back to their indigenous homelands, the majority will rule.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 5, 2015)

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



The Jews stole than land from the Christians and Muslims, that's just a fact.  The indigenous people are the Christians and Muslims, the Jews are from Europe and colonized Palestine, removing the indigenous people. Colonization is theft and that's what the Zionists did.

And the Palestinians aren't leaving and they are now the majority.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 5, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Oh now I get it.  That ancient B.C map you sent us of "Palaestina" written in Hebrew was produced by Christians & Muslims.  I tell ya folks, it's amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 5, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Palestinian squatters are allowed to remain on Israel's land there will be no peace.
> ...







And end up destroying Palestine, which is how it works when the regime taking over does not have a clue on how to run a country. Expect Saudi, Egypt, Jordan and Iran to start a war over control of the land, and expect the west to just sit back and let them wipe each other out.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 5, 2015)

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 When did this theft take place then as the Jews have legal valid land deeds unlike the arab muslims who have rusty keys. And since 1923 the land was Jewish under international law.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 5, 2015)

The land was stolen when the Europeans went to Palestine and stole.  Just a fact.  And your 1923 claim is just ridiculous as the land ownership was determined in 1943 about 95% Muslim and Christian as calculated by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on behalf of the UN.



Page 566.

http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=17185


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The land was stolen when the Europeans went to Palestine and stole.  Just a fact.  And your 1923 claim is just ridiculous as the land ownership was determined in 1943 about 95% Muslim and Christian as calculated by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on behalf of the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Wrong again freddy boy the LoN enabled an International law through treaty that granted the land to the Jews, at the same time they granted 78% of Palestine to the arab muslims called trans Jordan. There is a big difference between land title and land ownership and your committee written report is not factual as it does not break down the muslim numbers, in fact it lumps together absentee landlords and minority arab share farmers together. As other more valid reports from the same era show the numbers of arab muslims owning land in Jewish Palestine was miniscule, as they refused to hold title so they were not liable for taxes and conscription.

 But we see this in your link when it says that arabs owned 29.2% of the assets, this includes absentee landlords and foreign investors. That is the true figure for arab land ownership, not your false 95%. It also shows that the Jews owned 50.2% of the bank reserves proving that they came with the intention of benefitting all.
 But none of this overrules the Mandate of Palestine ruling granting sovereignty of Jewish Palestine to the Jews, Who in 1948 held out the hand of peace to all arab muslims and begged them to live in peace and prosperity. It does not alter the fact that you have been brainwashed by the Catholic clergy and nuns into believing that the Jews are to be reviled, hated and abused for what the Catholic church claimed they did nearly 2000 years ago. You forget that Jesus was an Orthodox Jew who preached Zionism, he was not a Catholic


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 6, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The land was stolen when the Europeans went to Palestine and stole.  Just a fact.  And your 1923 claim is just ridiculous as the land ownership was determined in 1943 about 95% Muslim and Christian as calculated by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on behalf of the UN.
> ...



Not only was Jesus a Jew but so were all the apostles as well.  In fact, there were no Christians at all during the lifetime of Jesus.  To hate the Jews is to hate Jesus & his followers who were also mostly Jews.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 6, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The land was stolen when the Europeans went to Palestine and stole.  Just a fact.  And your 1923 claim is just ridiculous as the land ownership was determined in 1943 about 95% Muslim and Christian as calculated by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on behalf of the UN.
> ...




Making things up again Phoney.  As the facts and documentation confirms.  The Jews owned about 5%  of the land in 1943.  But keep up the bullshitting.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Why don't you read your own link where it says this. But don't take my word for it look at this link

Clearing The Tangled Path For Land Ownership In The West Bank Parallels NPR


 In much of the world, real estate wouldn't be bought or sold without a deed, which serves as proof of ownership. But the West Bank has a complicated history.

 The Ottoman Empire began registering land to owners when it ruled here for four centuries, ending with World War I. The British Mandate government that followed continued land registration, including surveys. Jordan, which ruled what is now the West Bank between 1949 and 1967, started a systematic program of land registration, but didn't get very far.
Nick Gardner, an adviser to the Quartet diplomatic group mediating the Mideast peace process, says the lack of clarity around land ownership across the West Bank discourages outside investment.

"If we could do one thing that would make a massive difference to the economic development of Palestine, it would be to sort out the land registration, effective land registration," he says.

The Palestinian Authority, also created by the Oslo process, can register land in the 40 percent of the West Bank it administers — the increasingly crowded cities, as well as smaller Palestinian towns and some undeveloped land.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


----------

