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

[Sixties Fan]

[ Are Israelis or even any Jews still touring and giving money to Jordan? Still feeding this dragon of antisemitism, Peace treaty or no Peace Treaty? How is helping Jordan going? ]

Last week I reported that a major Netflix movie, The Old Story, was being filmed in Jordan as a stand-in for Israel, and filming was stopped when angry residents complained that Jews would be present for a scene where a terrorist hides in a mosque after a bombing.

Now, the Minister of Islamic Affairs in Jordan is trying to reassure residents that they have nothing to fear.

After investigation, he is pleased to announce that not a single Jew is involved in the filming in Jordan.

In a press conference, minister Abdullah al-Abbadi said that the filming in the mosque of Abu Nusair al-Kabir does not harm the Islamic religion and "there is no form of normalization with the occupation. "

In a meeting with the parliamentary committee to discuss the subject of the film yesterday he denied the presence of any Jews in the film, stressing that the only people involved were Jordanians and Palestinians and non-Jewish foreigners.

He said the production company has vowed not to insult any religion, but rather to spread tolerance and peace among people, and not to carry out any bombings inside the mosque and to return the mosque to its previous state in the event of any damage. He also said that the film "serves our cause," i.e., it won't make anyone look bad but Israelis.

(full article online)

Jordanian minister reassures his people: No Jews present in Netflix film scene outside a mosque ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, that would be entirely wrong. (So few words → so many mistakes.)

However, the fact remains that the Ottoman Empire released all rights and title to the area.

Indeed, to the new state of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Article 16 does not say anything about "Palestine." (In fact, "Palestine" is not mentioned anywhere in the Treaty.) And, there was no party to the agreement (Treaty of Lausanne) that represented the Regional Arab Inhabitance ---- none.

ARTICLE 16.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Government of Palestine was the British Mandatory. The Arab Higher Committee rejected the notion of participation in the establishment of Self-Governing Institutions (three times before 1923).

The State of Palestine was not created until well after the PLO Declared Independence.

Finally, there is a question as to whether there is a State of Palestine today. The question is, where is this new State sovereignty? → OR → Is it possible to have a "state" that has no sovereignty? As far as the neighboring states are concerned, the State of Israel has treaties pertaining to "International Boundaries." What do the undefined Arab Palestinians have? See: UN Memo from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs • SUBJECT: Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution 67/19 on the Status of Palestine in the UN • 11 December 2012 •

Most Respectfully,
R

The peace settlement which ended the First World War envisaged, inter alia, the recognition of the independence of the Arab provinces which until then had formed part of Turkey. The fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated:

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 to the selection of the Mandatory.​

As a result, five new states come into existence: Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Transjordan (which later changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). In execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, the League of Nations placed these new states under mandates: Lebanon and Syria under a French mandate, and Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan under British mandates. Iraq, however, rebelled and proclaimed its independence.

Under international law, the legal effect of the detachment of Palestine from Turkey and the recognition by Article 22 of the Covenant the League of Nations of the existence of its inhabitants as "an independent nation" was to make of Palestine a state under the law of nations in which was vested sovereignty over the country. [2]

The fact that Palestine was placed under a mandate did not affect the statehood of Palestine nor divest its people of sovereignty over their country.

The concept of mandates was one of a temporary arrangement having as its aim, in the words of Article 22 of the Covenant, the rendering to the peoples of the mandated territory of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they were able to stand alone. It is obvious that the Mandatory did not acquire title or sovereignty over the mandated territory.

The legal status of Palestine as one of the "A" mandated territories had close similarity to that of a protected state. [3] Palestine possessed an international personality which was distinct from that of the British government as Mandatory power. The Government of Palestine, as representative of the people and territory of Palestine, concluded agreements with the Mandatory power and treaties with third states through the instrumentality of Great Britain. The possession by Palestine of an international personality of its own thus distinguished its status from that, for example, of the territory of South West Africa. In the case of the latter, the Supreme Court of South Africa held that since German sovereignty over it was extinguished, and the territory survived only as a geographical entity and did not become an international person in its own right, its juristic personality had terminated. [4] This clearly was not the case of Palestine.

On the other hand, the Mandate did not divest the state or the people of Palestine of their sovereignty over the country. Professor Pic was one of the first writers to proclaim the principle that sovereignty lies in the inhabitants of the mandated territory.

In fact, there now exists a fairly general consensus that sovereignty lies in the people of the mandate territory.

The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions | The Institute for Palestine Studies

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, that would be entirely wrong. (So few words → so many mistakes.)

However, the fact remains that the Ottoman Empire released all rights and title to the area.

Indeed, to the new state of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Article 16 does not say anything about "Palestine." (In fact, "Palestine" is not mentioned anywhere in the Treaty.) And, there was no party to the agreement (Treaty of Lausanne) that represented the Regional Arab Inhabitance ---- none.

ARTICLE 16.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Government of Palestine was the British Mandatory. The Arab Higher Committee rejected the notion of participation in the establishment of Self-Governing Institutions (three times before 1923).

The State of Palestine was not created until well after the PLO Declared Independence.

Finally, there is a question as to whether there is a State of Palestine today. The question is, where is this new State sovereignty? → OR → Is it possible to have a "state" that has no sovereignty? As far as the neighboring states are concerned, the State of Israel has treaties pertaining to "International Boundaries." What do the undefined Arab Palestinians have? See: UN Memo from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs • SUBJECT: Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution 67/19 on the Status of Palestine in the UN • 11 December 2012 •

Most Respectfully,
R

The peace settlement which ended the First World War envisaged, inter alia, the recognition of the independence of the Arab provinces which until then had formed part of Turkey. The fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated:

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 to the selection of the Mandatory.​

As a result, five new states come into existence: Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Transjordan (which later changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). In execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, the League of Nations placed these new states under mandates: Lebanon and Syria under a French mandate, and Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan under British mandates. Iraq, however, rebelled and proclaimed its independence.

Under international law, the legal effect of the detachment of Palestine from Turkey and the recognition by Article 22 of the Covenant the League of Nations of the existence of its inhabitants as "an independent nation" was to make of Palestine a state under the law of nations in which was vested sovereignty over the country. [2]

The fact that Palestine was placed under a mandate did not affect the statehood of Palestine nor divest its people of sovereignty over their country.

The concept of mandates was one of a temporary arrangement having as its aim, in the words of Article 22 of the Covenant, the rendering to the peoples of the mandated territory of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they were able to stand alone. It is obvious that the Mandatory did not acquire title or sovereignty over the mandated territory.

The legal status of Palestine as one of the "A" mandated territories had close similarity to that of a protected state. [3] Palestine possessed an international personality which was distinct from that of the British government as Mandatory power. The Government of Palestine, as representative of the people and territory of Palestine, concluded agreements with the Mandatory power and treaties with third states through the instrumentality of Great Britain. The possession by Palestine of an international personality of its own thus distinguished its status from that, for example, of the territory of South West Africa. In the case of the latter, the Supreme Court of South Africa held that since German sovereignty over it was extinguished, and the territory survived only as a geographical entity and did not become an international person in its own right, its juristic personality had terminated. [4] This clearly was not the case of Palestine.

On the other hand, the Mandate did not divest the state or the people of Palestine of their sovereignty over the country. Professor Pic was one of the first writers to proclaim the principle that sovereignty lies in the inhabitants of the mandated territory.

In fact, there now exists a fairly general consensus that sovereignty lies in the people of the mandate territory.

The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions | The Institute for Palestine Studies

Keep dreaming, as the Arab Muslim authors of this piece of forgery did.

 

[Sixties Fan]

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/19/israel-to-un-lebanese-army-is-helping-hezbollah/

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

The TIPH mission, which comprises personnel from ‎Italy, Norway, ‎Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, was ‎originally established at the behest of the Israeli ‎government and the Palestinian Authority, with aim ‎of monitoring and recording any violation of ‎international humanitarian law.‎

Recently, however, a growing number ‎of complaints have alleged that the observers are ‎systematically and violently targeting the Jewish ‎community in Hebron. ‎

According to security officials, TIPH has been overstepping its mandate by providing tours to foreign diplomats in the city. The tours, they say, are biased against Israel.

(full article online)

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/...server-force-engaged-in-misconduct-for-years/

 

[Sixties Fan]

Report: Lebanese Army Moving Hezbollah Military Equipment to Israel’s Border

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/19/israel-to-un-lebanese-army-is-helping-hezbollah/

So, how many UN resolutions has Israel violated?

Double standard much?

 

[Sixties Fan]

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/19/israel-to-un-lebanese-army-is-helping-hezbollah/

So, how many UN resolutions has Israel violated?

Double standard much?

Consider the UN resolutions to be the same as the Protocols of the Elders of Zions.

Phony, false, forgeries.

Written by people with every intention of using the Jewish People or Israel as a punching bag, while they, the real criminals, and non saintly people, escape unharmed.

 

[Shusha]

As a result, five new states come into existence: Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine (which later changed its name to Israel), Syria and Transjordan (which later changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). In execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, the League of Nations placed these new states under mandates: Lebanon and Syria under a French mandate, and Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan under British mandates. Iraq, however, rebelled and proclaimed its independence.

Under international law, the legal effect of the detachment of Palestine from Turkey and the recognition by Article 22 of the Covenant the League of Nations of the existence of its inhabitants as "an independent nation" was to make of Palestine a state under the law of nations in which was vested sovereignty over the country. [2]

The fact that Palestine was placed under a mandate did not affect the statehood of Palestine nor divest its people of sovereignty over their country.

BOLD = my addition to post (fixed it for you)



I took the trouble to look up the reference here and it doesn't say what you think it says. In particular, the claim that "under international law, the legal effect of the detachment of Palestine from Turkey ... was to make of Palestine a state..."


"Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeships" H. Duncan Hall

The underlying assumptions of the League (and United Nations),
both political and psychological, are of great importance but have never
been subjected to any systematic analysis. Underlying Article 22 was
the assumption of independent national sovereignty for mandates. The
drafters of the Covenant took as their starting-point the general notions
of “no annexation” and “self-determination.” ...

The assumption of sovereignty was immediate for "A” territories (as
the terms of Article 23, paragraph 4, indicated). The broad general
effect in the case of the "A” mandates was pointed out by Norman
Bentwich ;

What is most remarkable in the law as to nationality in the mandated terri-
tories detached from Turkey is that in place of the Ottoman subjection there
are now five new nationality systems. . . . Theie has been no such national
particularism in the Middle East for nearly two thousand years.**

Palestine remained, at the end of the Second World War, the only “A”
mandate which had not yet achieved sovereignty. (emphasis mine)

...

Palestine, because of its radal and cultural dualism, could not
attain the minimum of agreement between the different peoples neces-
sary to achieve the "existence as independent nations” envisaged by the
Covenant for all of the "A” mandates.


The source quoted confirms that Palestine had not yet achieved sovereignty, so to claim that a State was formed is a major leap not present in the material referenced.

That aside, as usual, you deliberately ignore one of the key factors at play here. The intent of the Covenant was the self-determination of peoples. But which peoples? For Palestine it was the Jewish people for the purpose of re-constituting the Jewish National Homeland.

Further, you claim "The fact that Palestine was placed under a mandate did not ... divest its people of sovereignty over their country." Again, NO ONE is arguing that it did. The assumption of sovereignty still exists in Palestine -- that is the assumption of sovereignty rests with the people in Palestine (now named Israel). No one is removed the assumption of sovereignty from the people of Palestine. It has not been negated. (The only time it was negated was when Jordan and Egypt invaded).

What was problematic then, and is problematic now is, as referenced above, "Palestine, because of its radal and cultural dualism, could not attain the minimum of agreement between the different peoples necessary to achieve the existence as independent nations".

There are two peoples both of whom have been invested in international law by treaty with the assumption of sovereignty. Independent nations arise from the division of territory all the time. There is absolutely nothing in international law preventing a territory from being partitioned and having two independent states arise.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

.... ⟴ As a result, five new states come into existence: Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Transjordan (which later changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). In the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, the League of Nations placed these new states under mandates: Lebanon and Syria under a French mandate, and Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan under British mandates. Iraq, however, rebelled and proclaimed its independence.

(COMMENT)

"New states" came into existence, but NOT as a result of Article 22 or the Treaty. It was a result of decisions made by "certain" members of the Allied Powers. The League of Nations (LoN) Covenant, was an agreement between the parties to the LoN. Not the inhabitance. In fact, the inhabitance of the Region had nothing to do with the agreement.

If any part of the agreement was abrogated, violated or ignored, it was of NO business of the inhabitance of the Region. The Covenant was not written as a bond → but in such a way that it could be amended between the parties; without regard to the wishes of the inhabitance of the Region.

Under international law, the legal effect of the detachment of Palestine from Turkey and the recognition by Article 22 of the Covenant the League of Nations of the existence of its inhabitants as "an independent nation" was to make of Palestine a state under the law of nations in which was vested sovereignty over the country. [2]

(COMMENT)

Palestine, nor any of the Regions that came under Mandate by name, were detached from Turkey. The territory under discussion was detached in the form of Article 3 • SECTION I • TERRITORIAL CLAUSES •
Lausanne Treaty Part I:

ARTICLE 3.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(1) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.​

Let me repeat (I say again)→ The notion that there was some sort of automatic activation of the new states is essentially wrong. The establishment of (what has become today) Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel (Isreal + West Bank + Gaza Strip) was totally a decision principally by the Allied Powers of Great Britain and France. It was initially decided into Areas "A" for France and "B" for Great Britain in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This was not a determination involving the inhabitance of the Region.

No alternate history will change those decisions, and no manipulation of the facts will lead to a differing outcome.

The fact that Palestine was placed under a mandate did not affect the statehood of Palestine nor divest its people of sovereignty over their country.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is simply wrong. It was a subdivision of the territory known as Syria which the Allied Powers designated "Palestine."

The concept of mandates was one of a temporary arrangement having as its aim, in the words of Article 22 of the Covenant, the rendering to the peoples of the mandated territory of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they were able to stand alone. It is obvious that the Mandatory did not acquire title or sovereignty over the mandated territory.

(COMMENT)

Well, Article 22 did not assign or apportion the territory. But there is absolutely NO QUESTION that Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, records the disposition of all title and rights passing from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the Allied Powers (collectively).

The legal status of Palestine as one of the "A" mandated territories had close similarity to that of a protected state. [3] Palestine possessed an international personality which was distinct from that of the British government as Mandatory power. The Government of Palestine, as representative of the people and territory of Palestine, concluded agreements with the Mandatory power and treaties with third states through the instrumentality of Great Britain. The possession by Palestine of an international personality of its own thus distinguished its status from that, for example, of the territory of South West Africa. In the case of the latter, the Supreme Court of South Africa held that since German sovereignty over it was extinguished, and the territory survived only as a geographical entity and did not become an international person in its own right, its juristic personality had terminated. [4] This clearly was not the case of Palestine.

On the other hand, the Mandate did not divest the state or the people of Palestine of their sovereignty over the country. Professor Pic was one of the first writers to proclaim the principle that sovereignty lies in the inhabitants of the mandated territory.

(COMMENT)

This (in its entirety) is manipulated babble. It would take all evening to untangle this mess and reassemble it in the proper order and context. The status of the Government of Palestine, under the Mandate and assignment to Great Britain, is best-explained in part in: UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT: Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
​

In fact, there now exists a fairly general consensus that sovereignty lies in the people of the mandate territory.

(COMMENT)

No, this is entirely wrong and generated for the purpose of political propaganda.

The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions | The Institute for Palestine Studies

(COMMENT)

It would be (very) interesting for me to see exactly what actual "LAW" you are referring to here. In any event, the Hostile Arab Palestinians have, in their belligerents to pursue the avenues towards a peaceful settlement, will continue to experience the consequences of those actions and decisions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Let me repeat (I say again)→ The notion that there was some sort of automatic activation of the new states is essentially wrong.

Repeated for emphasis.

 

[Shusha]

It would be (very) interesting for me to see exactly what actual "LAW" you are referring to here.

There is no ACTUAL LAW in Tinmore's linked material.

 

[Shusha]

I don't agree with any killing. I just question the double standard.

Wait, what?! Says the guy who insists that Jews are not protected persons and therefore have no right to life and are "fair game".

I just posted what the Fourth Geneva Convention said.

Oh pahleeze. You posted it alongside the statement that Jews are "fair game".

 

[Shusha]

Last week I reported that a major Netflix movie, The Old Story, was being filmed in Jordan as a stand-in for Israel, and filming was stopped when angry residents complained that Jews would be present for a scene where a terrorist hides in a mosque after a bombing.

Now, the Minister of Islamic Affairs in Jordan is trying to reassure residents that they have nothing to fear.

After investigation, he is pleased to announce that not a single Jew is involved in the filming in Jordan.

Coyote

THIS is why there is no equivalence between stone throwers. THIS is the underlying context.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't agree with any killing. I just question the double standard.

Wait, what?! Says the guy who insists that Jews are not protected persons and therefore have no right to life and are "fair game".

I just posted what the Fourth Geneva Convention said.

Oh pahleeze. You posted it alongside the statement that Jews are "fair game".

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons in the territory that is occupied. Settlers are insurgents. And Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist invasion from a foreign power.

You blame Palestinian parents for taking their children to the March of Return protests and being deliberately shot by Israeli snipers; well, quid pro quo mother-fucker, Settlers are guilty of putting their children in harms way, by illegally moving into an area that is not Israels.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Prepping for Terror, Hanging Tough (Judean Rose) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Shusha]

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons in the territory that is occupied. Settlers are insurgents. And Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist invasion from a foreign power.

Yes, I am well aware of the specific laws you are quoting. My argument is with the meaning you place and the extrapolation you make with respect to these specific laws.

The fact that nationals of the occupying power are not "protected persons" as written in GCIV does NOT mean they are not protected persons through other laws -- specifically IHL and the local laws of the nation under which they are nationals. You are trying to use this law to say that Jews are NEVER protected persons under any laws and therefore it is permissible to kill Jews. It would be like saying that since THIS cookie has no chocolate chips in it, NO cookie has chocolate chips in it. This violates not only rules of logic and law, but think on this: someone went out and looked for a law which gave them justification and permission to kill Jews. That is abhorrent.

Every word of your last sentence above is wrong. But, I'm just going to focus on the killing Jews aspect of the argument. Any (perceived) right to "resist" does not abrogate normative rules of IHL. The right to "resist" does not mean that you can ignore all the established rules of engagement and warfare -- most especially the requirements not to target civilians, not to be indiscriminate in attacks, to attack only military targets and to contain attacks to rules of proportionality. Arabs are still bound by those rules.

You blame Palestinian parents for taking their children to the March of Return protests and being deliberately shot by Israeli snipers; well, quid pro quo mother-fucker, Settlers are guilty of putting their children in harms way, by illegally moving into an area that is not Israels.

It is the responsibility of all governments and combatants in warfare to separate civilians from military targets. That applies to all. Civilian homes and people are NOT military targets.

And again, it is vile to attempt to justify the murder of a specific group of peoples. There is a term for that, you know.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is just so wrong on so many levels, that it is almost criminal.

Nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons in the territory that is occupied. Settlers are insurgents. And Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist invasion from a foreign power.

(COMMENT)

You should know better.

Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. That includes the Israeli civilians.

Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (Protected Persons) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, "shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed." Arab Palestinians of the West Bank is guilty of the following acts, are subject to prosecution and sentencing under the penal legislation and/or the Articles 64 thru 75 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

◈ Espionage,
◈ Serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power,
◈ Intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,​

While you are correct, the Israeli citizens are "NOT" categorized as protected persons, they in the category of are all persons who are not members of armed forces or organized armed group = civilians.

Your statement is very close to advocating the violation of Customary and IHL.

Article 13 → Protection of the civilian population • Additional Protocol I to GCIV

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.​

You blame Palestinian parents for taking their children to the March of Return protests and being deliberately shot by Israeli snipers; well, quid pro quo mother-fucker, Settlers are guilty of putting their children in harm's way, by illegally moving into an area that is not Israels.

(COMMENT)

Settlers in Area "C" are there under the full Israeli civil and security control and AGREED upon by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO is considered the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - Resolution (28 October 1974).

Whereas, the Gaza Palestinians are participating in a belligerent assault on the border with Israel. The territory, under the governing body of HAMAS, has declared that:

"Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."​

It is a much different set of circumstances.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the case of the “A” mandates, a definite nationality or its
equivalent has been created; in Iraq, by Iraq law of October 9, 1924; in Palestine, by British Order in Council of July 24, 1925. The latter created a Palestinian citizenship which is equivalent to nationality.

The genesis of the mandate system as idea and policy during the war of 1914-18 will not be clear until full access can be had to the archives of London and Washington. It is the evolution of* official thinking which is the all-important part of the story. One corner of the veil was lifted recently by Viscount Samuel, a member of the British Cabinet in the first part of the war.’ Memoranda and notes of conversations quoted by him show that as early as November, 1914, through March, 1915, the ideas that led to the Palestine mandate were being discussed with the British Foreign Office and the Cabinet, and the discussion led straight back to the nineteenth-century mandate experiments of the powers in Turkey described above. The various possible alternative means of establishing a Jewish homeland, whether by annexation or by a British protectorate or by internationalization, were all discussed. A conversation on February 5, 1915, written down on that day, records Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, as doubting “the possibility or desirability of the establishment of a British Protectorate” and suggesting several possibilities, including neutralization "under international guarantee,” an international commission to control the Holy Places, or, if Turkey were to remain suzerain, “a regime somewhat like that of Lebanon, but with the governor appointed by the Powers.” ® In 1915, it was already clearly foreseen that the idea of a Jewish state run on democratic lines was impracticable since the great majority of the inhabitants were Arabs.

On February 18, 1947, the Foreign Secretary informed Parliament of the government’s decision to lay the matter before the General Assembly of the United Nations at its regular meeting in September. This would be done with an historical account of the discharge of the trust since the inception of the mandate, but without recommendations as to a settlement of the problem. “We shall explain,” he said, “that the mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice and that the obligations to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable.”

Full text of "Mandates Dependencies And Trusteeship"
----------------
Duh, it took you 30 years to figure that out?