All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Sixties Fan]

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

Those who hold the deed to any of the land bought by Jews from 1850 on, when the Ottoman Empire started selling land.

Would you like to see the deed to the Swamp which became Tel-Aviv?

Indeed, before about 1850 the Ottomans had a different land system. By WWI there was a lot of land that had not been registered to the new system. This does not mean they did not own the land. It was just that it was not processes yet.

Nice try.

Huge Fail.

You are assuming that people who have no money to buy land have actually bought land.


FAIL

I didn't say that.

No, you didn't .


I SAID THAT. Because that is how it was.

Arabs and Jews who had money bought land.

Those who didn't have money, did not buy any.

In other words, NOT ALL land was Arab Palestinian, or Turkish, or Lebanese, or Egyptian owned.

But the Muslims did get lots of land for free from expelling the Jews from Gaza, to Hebron to Judea and Samaria.

Well, they did not really get it. Not all of them. Only the ones with weapons and the power to keep those lands and houses to themselves.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

"The Three Oaths" are relating to a civilization and culture that has evolved several times since

181 was a non-binding resolution.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is correct. It was an optional political offer for the establishment of Independence. The Israelis took-up the offer, and (like several times before) the Arab Palestinians declined the offer.

The Israelis have crafted something of the recommendations, the Arab Palestinians did not even try.

You cannot exercise your right of self-determination, by stripping away the same right from another group.
.

(COMMENT)

That is correct, the Arab Palestinians did not make and effort toward self-determination; but instead - tried to restrain The Jews from exercising their Right to Self-Determination in the creation of Israel (The Jewish National Home; the original intent of the Allied Powers.).

The creation of the state of Israel violates THE THREE OATHS.

(COMMENT)

(REFERENCES)

✦ One, that Israel should not storm the wall [RaShI interprets: forcefully].
✦ Two, the Holy One made Israel take an oath not to rebel against the nations of the world.
✦ Three, the Holy One made the nations vow that they would not oppress Israel too much".​

I really don't see a problem; not that it matters.

◈ Again, the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Oath.
◈ The Israelis of today made no such obligation the the Arab Palestinians or any Arab League Nation existing today.
◈ The Israelis of today, have Treaties that cover both the land of Gaza and the land of the West Bank.​

Arabs in Israel are treated like 2nd class citizens.

(COMMENT)

I cannot speak for the Arab-Israeli citizens.

What I think is that just as I grew up during a time when I was afraid of

And finally, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

(COMMENT)

Now, what international law are you citing in this claim? I can cite you the exact law that punishes the Arab Palestinians for doing harm to:

◈ The Occupying Power,
◈ An attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration,
◈ Present a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property
◈ Present a grave collective danger or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations.
◈ Arab Palestinians that are guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power
◈ Occupying Power through the intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,​

In fact, YOU are dangerously close to incitement when YOU claim that the Occupation Force (Israelis) cannot defend themselves against attacks and assaults by the Protected Person (Arab Palestinians).

Attempting to suggest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;
(b) Prevent such conduct;
(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible
and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been
guilty of such conduct;​

3. Calls upon all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance and to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural, and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters;​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Pushing for an Israeli Victory Is the Only Way to End the Conflict with the Palestinians

 

[Sixties Fan]

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/...quds-university-over-incitement-to-terrorism/

 

[MJB12741]

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

Those who hold the deed to any of the land bought by Jews from 1850 on, when the Ottoman Empire started selling land.

Would you like to see the deed to the Swamp which became Tel-Aviv?

Indeed, before about 1850 the Ottomans had a different land system. By WWI there was a lot of land that had not been registered to the new system. This does not mean they did not own the land. It was just that it was not processes yet.

Nice try.

Huge Fail.

You are assuming that people who have no money to buy land have actually bought land.


FAIL

I didn't say that.

Do you or do you not agree that the land Palestinians call theirs is overwhelmingly stolen land?

 

[MJB12741]

[
No answer eh. Yo Tinmore, remember this?

The Origin and Nature of the “Mandate for Palestine”

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5

The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form.

Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine. The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine.”

Great Britain [i.e., the Mandatory or Trustee] did turn over its responsibility to the United Nations as of May 14, 1948. However, the legal force of the League of Nations’ “Mandate for Palestine” [i.e., The Trust] was not terminated with the end of the British Mandate. Rather, the Trust was transferred over to the United Nations.


6

Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France as Mandatory (e.g., official administrators and mentors) carved up the former Ottoman Empire, which had collapsed a year earlier, into geographic spheres of influence. This divided the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.7

Territory was divided along map meridians without regard for traditional frontiers (i.e., geographic logic and sustainability) or the ethnic composition of indigenous populations.8

The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.

The Arabs’ hatred of the Jewish State has never been strong enough to prevent the bloody rivalries that repeatedly rock the Middle East. These conflicts were evident in the civil wars in Yemen and Lebanon, as well as in the war between Iraq and Iran, in the gassing of countless Kurds in Iraq, and in the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis.

The manner in which European colonial powers carved out political entities with little regard to their ethnic composition not only led to this inter-ethnic violence, but it also encouraged dictatorial rule as the only force capable of holding such entities together.9

The exception was Palestine, or Eretz-Israel – the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, where:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [ Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”10

 

[Billo_Really]

If You only understood what those soundbytes mean You'd see how self-defeating was that position:

You don't have a clue as to what I understand, so shut your fucking mouth, you arrogant asshole!

Indeed 181 was non-binding, and that's Your problem because it's the 1st time an Arab state is mentioned.

I don't give a shit what it mentions, you can't use that as legal justification to create the state of Israel.

By definition self determination is differentiation of one group from another, see Arab Palestine.

No that is not its definition.

Definition of self-determination
1: free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion

2: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
​

The Palestinians have neither their free choice without Israeli interference, or allowed, by the Israelis, to determine their own future.

Arabs in Israel are treated better that in any Muslim country, in fact Israel is the BEST Arab country.

Boy, are you full of shit there!

Arabs in Israel have often been treated as second-class citizens. Their schools and healthcare institutions are more poorly funded, their roads aren’t always as well maintained. They’ve faced limitations on where they can live and buy property.​

Occupational force certainly can claim self defense, with that said the presence of Israeli forces in Palestine is direct function of exercising the sovereignty of the Jewish nation which was vested with this right in intl. law.

Bullshit. That's the same as saying an assassin telling the cops that after breaking into his targets' house and finding the home owner putting up more of a fight than expected, he had no choice but to kill the owner, because he was in fear for his life.

In fact denial of exercising this right is an infringement of both international law and US constitution.

Not when you take away the rights of others. No law allows you to do that.

Nationals of the Jewish state are both protected and obliged to exercise that power, claiming otherwise is bordering hate speech and incitement to murder.

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

​

 

[Billo_Really]

You see you Zionists? Before 1948 the Palestinians were a gentle peace loving people who treated the Jewish minority well. And if you don't believe me, just ask Billo.

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia

Riots started by Zionists.

From your link...
In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag.
​

You really are selfish bastards.

And what about the Jews who were saved by Arab families?

From your link...
Around 435 Jews, or two-thirds of the community, survived. Most were reportedly saved by Arab families...​

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

"The Three Oaths" are relating to a civilization and culture that has evolved several times since

181 was a non-binding resolution.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is correct. It was an optional political offer for the establishment of Independence. The Israelis took-up the offer, and (like several times before) the Arab Palestinians declined the offer.

The Israelis have crafted something of the recommendations, the Arab Palestinians did not even try.

You cannot exercise your right of self-determination, by stripping away the same right from another group.
.

(COMMENT)

That is correct, the Arab Palestinians did not make and effort toward self-determination; but instead - tried to restrain The Jews from exercising their Right to Self-Determination in the creation of Israel (The Jewish National Home; the original intent of the Allied Powers.).

The creation of the state of Israel violates THE THREE OATHS.

(COMMENT)

(REFERENCES)

✦ One, that Israel should not storm the wall [RaShI interprets: forcefully].
✦ Two, the Holy One made Israel take an oath not to rebel against the nations of the world.
✦ Three, the Holy One made the nations vow that they would not oppress Israel too much".​

I really don't see a problem; not that it matters.

◈ Again, the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Oath.
◈ The Israelis of today made no such obligation the the Arab Palestinians or any Arab League Nation existing today.
◈ The Israelis of today, have Treaties that cover both the land of Gaza and the land of the West Bank.​

Arabs in Israel are treated like 2nd class citizens.

(COMMENT)

I cannot speak for the Arab-Israeli citizens.

What I think is that just as I grew up during a time when I was afraid of

And finally, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

(COMMENT)

Now, what international law are you citing in this claim? I can cite you the exact law that punishes the Arab Palestinians for doing harm to:

◈ The Occupying Power,
◈ An attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration,
◈ Present a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property
◈ Present a grave collective danger or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations.
◈ Arab Palestinians that are guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power
◈ Occupying Power through the intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,​

In fact, YOU are dangerously close to incitement when YOU claim that the Occupation Force (Israelis) cannot defend themselves against attacks and assaults by the Protected Person (Arab Palestinians).

Attempting to suggest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;
(b) Prevent such conduct;
(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible
and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been
guilty of such conduct;​

3. Calls upon all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance and to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural, and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters;​

Most Respectfully,
R

The three oaths state Israel is not to be created until God comes back down to earth. And Jews are to remain in exile until then.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh boy! You and I must speak a different language.

The three oaths state Israel is not to be created until God comes back down to earth. And Jews are to remain in exile until then.

(COMMENT)

This is much too funny to even warrant a response. This is (I think) a very Ultra-Orthodox Jewish interpretation around a single passage in the Babylonian Talmud ("Oral Law").

But as I am not Jewish, I'll leave the interpretation to the Jewish Scholars.

No that is not its definition.

Definition of self-determination
1: free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion

2: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
​

The Palestinians have neither their free choice without Israeli interference, or allowed, by the Israelis, to determine their own future.

(COMMENT)

I see what you wrote, but I don't think you understand what you have written.

In the basic "right of people to determine" (ie "right of self-determination) with no compulsion or coercion (no external interference), their own future, political status and independence → we can venture and understand that it was not written specifically for Arab Palestinians; but for all people including the Jews.

The "right of self-determination" does not promise any people any specifics tangibles. It is, in essence, the right to make a choice. But it also includes taking responsibility for the consequence of that choice. And WOW! The Arab Palestinians have made so many bad choices.

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
​

​

(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. BUT! Being a member of the class of nationals belonging to the Occupying Power (ie a "non-Protected Person") is not the same thing as having no protections by law. The status of a "Protect Person" is to say that the Israelis have an obligation towards your protection from abuse. The Israeli citizens are not owed a duty by international law, but by the national laws of Israel and Occupation Law. But they are also protected by prosecutorial opinions under Article 68 Penal legislation 'vs' Penalties - Death penalty (Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power).

Anyone, even a child of the First Grade of School knows and understands that to attack and assault (intended to harm the Occupying Power) those with Article 43 (HR) responsibilities, is wrong. Well everyone (that is) except Arab Palestinians.

It is totally immature to teach or suggests to others that the Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to attack civilians:

◈ Rule #2 Customary and IHL

◈ Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I
◈ Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II​

Prohibition on indiscriminate attacks:

◈ Rule #11 Customary and IHL

◈ Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I
◈ Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh boy! You and I must speak a different language.

The three oaths state Israel is not to be created until God comes back down to earth. And Jews are to remain in exile until then.

(COMMENT)

This is much too funny to even warrant a response. This is (I think) a very Ultra-Orthodox Jewish interpretation around a single passage in the Babylonian Talmud ("Oral Law").

But as I am not Jewish, I'll leave the interpretation to the Jewish Scholars.

No that is not its definition.

Definition of self-determination
1: free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion

2: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
​

The Palestinians have neither their free choice without Israeli interference, or allowed, by the Israelis, to determine their own future.

(COMMENT)

I see what you wrote, but I don't think you understand what you have written.

In the basic "right of people to determine" (ie "right of self-determination) with no compulsion or coercion (no external interference), their own future, political status and independence → we can venture and understand that it was not written specifically for Arab Palestinians; but for all people including the Jews.

The "right of self-determination" does not promise any people any specifics tangibles. It is, in essence, the right to make a choice. But it also includes taking responsibility for the consequence of that choice. And WOW! The Arab Palestinians have made so many bad choices.

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
​

​

(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. BUT! Being a member of the class of nationals belonging to the Occupying Power (ie a "non-Protected Person") is not the same thing as having no protections by law. The status of a "Protect Person" is to say that the Israelis have an obligation towards your protection from abuse. The Israeli citizens are not owed a duty by international law, but by the national laws of Israel and Occupation Law. But they are also protected by prosecutorial opinions under Article 68 Penal legislation 'vs' Penalties - Death penalty (Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power).

Anyone, even a child of the First Grade of School knows and understands that to attack and assault (intended to harm the Occupying Power) those with Article 43 (HR) responsibilities, is wrong. Well everyone (that is) except Arab Palestinians.

It is totally immature to teach or suggests to others that the Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to attack civilians:

◈ Rule #2 Customary and IHL

◈ Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I
◈ Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II​

Prohibition on indiscriminate attacks:

◈ Rule #11 Customary and IHL

◈ Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I
◈ Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II​

Most Respectfully,
R

In the basic "right of people to determine" (ie "right of self-determination) with no compulsion or coercion (no external interference),

And you always post pages of external interference.

 

[Shusha]

Being a member of the class of nationals belonging to the Occupying Power (ie a "non-Protected Person") is not the same thing as having no protections by law.

I don't understand why they have so much trouble with this one. They are trying to argue that because person A is not protected by this specific law; person A is not protected by ANY law. Its ridiculous.

Rather like saying if person A is not permitted to eat pork they are going to starve to death.

 

[Karl Rand]

Just in case anyone wants to lable me an anti-semite my background is Jewish. However, given the realities on the ground in the Middle East , a pox on all semitic tribes.

Lets hope in their ancient delusion God is on both their sides they don’t trigger the next world war. It’s that serious with Nth Korean nuclear missiles on their way to Iraq and Israel armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

 

[rylah]

Indeed 181 was non-binding, and that's Your problem because it's the 1st time an Arab state is mentioned.

I don't give a shit what it mentions, you can't use that as legal justification to create the state of Israel.

This is where You've got it all wrong.

Israel didn't need 181 as a legal basis for sovereignty, since it was already established in international law 2 decades prior to that. It is actually the Arabs who use this straw man to confuse everyone, because they're themselves detached, it was the first time they were suggested sovereignty west of Jordan by the international community.

That's called Palestinian mentality - bring up documents that suppose to give You title, brag about how they're non binding, walk proudly away as if it made any sense or helped the argument, then get angry and blame the other after You've spat in Your own well.

 

[rylah]

By definition self determination is differentiation of one group from another, see Arab Palestine.

No that is not its definition.

Definition of self-determination
1: free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion

2: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
​

The Palestinians have neither their free choice without Israeli interference, or allowed, by the Israelis, to determine their own future.

Yes this definition supports what I say,
Palestinians should provide freedom to all Palestinians who want to be subjects of Arab Palestine, and Israel to all subjects of Jewish Palestine. Neither of the groups can ever have total freedom from interference from any of the side or their other neighbors. This is given, yet only one side demand a removal of a minority as a function to "freedom of interference", it's not Israel with it's 3rd largest Arab party.

What Palestinians have is a problem with the results of their choices, and the presence of a non-Arab nation among them. Their choices have consequence, and no one else has that responsibility to carry the consequence but them.

 

[rylah]

Boy, are you full of shit there!

Arabs in Israel have often been treated as second-class citizens. Their schools and healthcare institutions are more poorly funded, their roads aren’t always as well maintained. They’ve faced limitations on where they can live and buy property.​

No, I'm correct 100% - Israel is the BEST Arab country.
In no other Arab country do they enjoy the same freedoms or quality of life.

 

[rylah]

Occupational force certainly can claim self defense, with that said the presence of Israeli forces in Palestine is direct function of exercising the sovereignty of the Jewish nation which was vested with this right in intl. law.

Bullshit. That's the same as saying an assassin telling the cops that after breaking into his targets' house and finding the home owner putting up more of a fight than expected, he had no choice but to kill the owner, because he was in fear for his life.

Isn't this the Arab argument of being the victims of their own pogroms?

These anecdotes of the Menson family victim-hood are sure a nice twist.
You forgot to put the sad kitten face.

Fact remains - no Zionist ever shot a billet before the Arab pogroms, so let's not pretend they didn't ruin their life by trying to murder the local Jews.

 

[rylah]

In fact denial of exercising this right is an infringement of both international law and US constitution.

Not when you take away the rights of others. No law allows you to do that.

​

You have somewhat naive understanding of law and sovereignty.
Tell me what happens to Your freedom of movement when caught driving drunk?

 

[Mindful]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh boy! You and I must speak a different language.

The three oaths state Israel is not to be created until God comes back down to earth. And Jews are to remain in exile until then.

(COMMENT)

This is much too funny to even warrant a response. This is (I think) a very Ultra-Orthodox Jewish interpretation around a single passage in the Babylonian Talmud ("Oral Law").

But as I am not Jewish, I'll leave the interpretation to the Jewish Scholars.

No that is not its definition.

Definition of self-determination
1: free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion

2: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
​

The Palestinians have neither their free choice without Israeli interference, or allowed, by the Israelis, to determine their own future.

(COMMENT)

I see what you wrote, but I don't think you understand what you have written.

In the basic "right of people to determine" (ie "right of self-determination) with no compulsion or coercion (no external interference), their own future, political status and independence → we can venture and understand that it was not written specifically for Arab Palestinians; but for all people including the Jews.

The "right of self-determination" does not promise any people any specifics tangibles. It is, in essence, the right to make a choice. But it also includes taking responsibility for the consequence of that choice. And WOW! The Arab Palestinians have made so many bad choices.

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
​

​

(COMMENT)

That is absolutely correct. BUT! Being a member of the class of nationals belonging to the Occupying Power (ie a "non-Protected Person") is not the same thing as having no protections by law. The status of a "Protect Person" is to say that the Israelis have an obligation towards your protection from abuse. The Israeli citizens are not owed a duty by international law, but by the national laws of Israel and Occupation Law. But they are also protected by prosecutorial opinions under Article 68 Penal legislation 'vs' Penalties - Death penalty (Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power).

Anyone, even a child of the First Grade of School knows and understands that to attack and assault (intended to harm the Occupying Power) those with Article 43 (HR) responsibilities, is wrong. Well everyone (that is) except Arab Palestinians.

It is totally immature to teach or suggests to others that the Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to attack civilians:

◈ Rule #2 Customary and IHL

◈ Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I
◈ Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II​

Prohibition on indiscriminate attacks:

◈ Rule #11 Customary and IHL

◈ Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I
◈ Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II​

Most Respectfully,
R

In the basic "right of people to determine" (ie "right of self-determination) with no compulsion or coercion (no external interference),

And you always post pages of external interference.

And you always post pages of nothingness.

 

[rylah]

Nationals of the Jewish state are both protected and obliged to exercise that power, claiming otherwise is bordering hate speech and incitement to murder.

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

​

Then I refer You back to post #6165 where You claimed that partition of the land for an Arab Palestine was not binding, therefore leaving that territory for the initial title of Jewish sovereignty as written in international law.

Titled owners can't be occupiers.