Israeli Army Forces Enter Gaza, Open Fire On Palestinian Farmers

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can't win if you don't play. (The axiom of a Lottery or any Sport.)

RoccoR said:
22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”.

That would legitimize the foreign Jewish Agency.

The Palestinians were not going to play that game.
(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency was legitimized no matter what the position the Arabs might have taken. It was a prerequisite behind the decisions made by the Allied Powers in San Remo; and the establishment of the Jewish National Home. From a political standpoint, the Jewish People were overjoyed by the decision of the Arabs not to exercise a voice through a counterpart Agency.

Remembering that the Arab Voice could have altered the outcomes in many of the disputes.

A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.

“There is no question,” the Colonial Officer continued, “of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty’s Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies…..If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill (then Colonial Secretary) Has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British government to the Jewish people. It follows that the principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were ell advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria.”
19. This passage in the letter of the colonial Office was characterised by the Arab Delegation as

“the strongest proof that the Jewish National Home undertaking is the cause of depriving us of our natural right of establishing an independent government the same as Mesopotamia and the Hedjaz.”
They also concluded from it that

self-government will be granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by self-government, and not before.”​

And that is an essential understanding of the time.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
How would that work in reality as the arab muslims will refuse to be anyones equal as it is commanded by their god that they will be superior to everyone else in the world
 
RoccoR said:
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
That part was removed when it was rewritten as the Treaty of Lausanne which was ratified. That removal affirms that Palestine was provisionally recognized as an independent state.
-------------------
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
-----------------------
The way the mandate went down was clearly a violation of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians.
 
Of course, there could be a compromise where a secular state is formed where all people of Palestine, of whatever religion, have equal rights.
With the palistanian "rights" more equal, than those of others, of course.
No, equal rights for all.
Why? Surely, palistanians have their equal rights in their palistan.

Yes, the Australians in Palistan have the same rights as other Australians.



While the Palestinian Christians are being ethnically cleansed from Palestine and being treated as 4th class citizens
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate and certainly not true.

RoccoR said:
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
That part was removed when it was rewritten as the Treaty of Lausanne which was ratified. That removal affirms that Palestine was provisionally recognized as an independent state.
-------------------
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
-----------------------
The way the mandate went down was clearly a violation of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)

The interpretation, whether ratified or not, was none the less --- that of the Allied Powers --- who also wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, which does not mention Palestine at all. Palestine was never singled-out by the Allied Powers. Remember, all these interpretations were on events that happened in the early 1920's. The recounting happened in the late 1940's; after all the interpretations were ironed-out.

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the Arab Agency as an advisory element on the administration of the territory under mandate.

Lastly, there were no violations of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians were not violated. The same authorities that wrote the Mandate also wrote the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians simply did not comply with the acceptable processes leading to independence.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate and certainly not true.

RoccoR said:
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
That part was removed when it was rewritten as the Treaty of Lausanne which was ratified. That removal affirms that Palestine was provisionally recognized as an independent state.
-------------------
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
-----------------------
The way the mandate went down was clearly a violation of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)

The interpretation, whether ratified or not, was none the less --- that of the Allied Powers --- who also wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, which does not mention Palestine at all. Palestine was never singled-out by the Allied Powers. Remember, all these interpretations were on events that happened in the early 1920's. The recounting happened in the late 1940's; after all the interpretations were ironed-out.

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the Arab Agency as an advisory element on the administration of the territory under mandate.

Lastly, there were no violations of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians were not violated. The same authorities that wrote the Mandate also wrote the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians simply did not comply with the acceptable processes leading to independence.

Most Respectfully,
R
There was no special processes required. They were the natives inside a defined territory. They already had the right to independence. And they still do.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence is simply not as easy to declare as the Arab Palestinian or you think.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate and certainly not true.

RoccoR said:
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
That part was removed when it was rewritten as the Treaty of Lausanne which was ratified. That removal affirms that Palestine was provisionally recognized as an independent state.
-------------------
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
-----------------------
The way the mandate went down was clearly a violation of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)

The interpretation, whether ratified or not, was none the less --- that of the Allied Powers --- who also wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, which does not mention Palestine at all. Palestine was never singled-out by the Allied Powers. Remember, all these interpretations were on events that happened in the early 1920's. The recounting happened in the late 1940's; after all the interpretations were ironed-out.

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the Arab Agency as an advisory element on the administration of the territory under mandate.

Lastly, there were no violations of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians were not violated. The same authorities that wrote the Mandate also wrote the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians simply did not comply with the acceptable processes leading to independence.

Most Respectfully,
R
There was no special processes required. They were the natives inside a defined territory. They already had the right to independence. And they still do.
(COMMENT)

Well, there certainly are process that need to be coordinated and debts to assume, and civil services to be established, and a hundred other functions that were transferred from the Ottoman to the Mandatory --- and then --- presumably to the successor government. Unlike the simplicity you present here, there is a lot more to becoming a nation then just waking-up one morning and saying: We are a new nation. Yes, there are processes required, just as there were when the Mandatory assumed governmental authority. And it is all these other functions of Government that are needed that make, even unto today, the Arab Palestinians unable to stand alone. Every year, like the beggars on the street corner, the Palestinians need help organizing a "Donor's Conference;" for which it is totally dependent.

The "defined territory" is a territory capture, defined and administered from the Ottoman Empire and surrendered to the Allied Power, not the indigenous population.

The League of Nations recognized the "right" of the Arab, but also observed that the Arab in the Palestine under Mandate was not capable of establishing a self government.

The right of the Arab Palestinian - today - does not exists were it conflicts with the right of the Israeli - today.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Not "when" ---- but "how many times?"

P F Tinmore, et al,

Relative to an "inalienable right" --- it is never "offered." It is either "used" or "not used" --- "exercised" or "not exercised." It is a right exclusive --- "conditio sine qua non" --- "self determination without external interference" (independence and sovereignty) can not have happened unless the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) exercise the right first.

When were the Palestinians offered:
The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Prior to 1948, or ever?
(COMMENT)

As America has experienced many times (most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq), no one can hand any culture or people "independence and sovereignty" unless they are willing to make the effort to sustain it and maintain it. The HoAP have never been able to establish independence (the ability to stand alone) --- and --- sustain it and maintain it (not for more than a thousand years). At the rate they are progressing, we will not see that in my lifetime.

When were the Palestinians offered their "rights?" Never! They always had them --- never lost them. They never developed to that point in their culture that they understood how to apply it; just as today - they do not understand the importance of the progressive development and codification of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States. And in their child-like frustration to apply them they morphed into the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R
People under occupation find it difficult to exercise their rights.

Unfortunately, Palestine was born under occupation and has been occupied ever since.
(OBSERVATION)

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

  • “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947
(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian shot themselves in the foot several times.

Most Respectfully,
R
Nice duck of the question:

When were the Palestinians offered:
The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

Prior to 1948, or ever?
But our honorable P F Tinmore claimed that, arabs did have those "inalienable" rights! Those Schrödinger's palistanians, having rights and not having them altogether, genocided and not genocided, etc., existing in some zombie state!
The Palestinians remind me of a guy who loses his ass in a poker game and then demands his money back.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence is simply not as easy to declare as the Arab Palestinian or you think.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate and certainly not true.

RoccoR said:
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
That part was removed when it was rewritten as the Treaty of Lausanne which was ratified. That removal affirms that Palestine was provisionally recognized as an independent state.
-------------------
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
-----------------------
The way the mandate went down was clearly a violation of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)

The interpretation, whether ratified or not, was none the less --- that of the Allied Powers --- who also wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, which does not mention Palestine at all. Palestine was never singled-out by the Allied Powers. Remember, all these interpretations were on events that happened in the early 1920's. The recounting happened in the late 1940's; after all the interpretations were ironed-out.

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the Arab Agency as an advisory element on the administration of the territory under mandate.

Lastly, there were no violations of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians were not violated. The same authorities that wrote the Mandate also wrote the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians simply did not comply with the acceptable processes leading to independence.

Most Respectfully,
R
There was no special processes required. They were the natives inside a defined territory. They already had the right to independence. And they still do.
(COMMENT)

Well, there certainly are process that need to be coordinated and debts to assume, and civil services to be established, and a hundred other functions that were transferred from the Ottoman to the Mandatory --- and then --- presumably to the successor government. Unlike the simplicity you present here, there is a lot more to becoming a nation then just waking-up one morning and saying: We are a new nation. Yes, there are processes required, just as there were when the Mandatory assumed governmental authority. And it is all these other functions of Government that are needed that make, even unto today, the Arab Palestinians unable to stand alone. Every year, like the beggars on the street corner, the Palestinians need help organizing a "Donor's Conference;" for which it is totally dependent.

The "defined territory" is a territory capture, defined and administered from the Ottoman Empire and surrendered to the Allied Power, not the indigenous population.

The League of Nations recognized the "right" of the Arab, but also observed that the Arab in the Palestine under Mandate was not capable of establishing a self government.

The right of the Arab Palestinian - today - does not exists were it conflicts with the right of the Israeli - today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Some posters talk about rights like the Ottoman or arab world was a democracy. Women, children and servants were property and did not have individual rights except what the dominant male of the family gave them.
Rights in the muslim world were not automatic, equal and certainly not universal to all.
Rights as we talk about them are given by the state, each country has their own variation. What we call the universal human rights is a wish list made by the UN, but not all people in all lands have those rights.
Slavery was still legal in the arab world till 1965, and in some areas is still common place despite any laws prohibiting. Indenture and child apprenticeship are also used as forms of slavery to this day. Such people are given very little if any rights or consideration.
Just people cause a people happen to live does not mean they have rights. Rights have to be recognized and protected under law, laws made by men. Even so called god's laws mean nothing unless men are willing to grant them. Life in the middle east and muslim world have little meaning as we see everyday in the news.
Talk of palestinian rights mean nothing in most host countries. Even in the PA, rights in the WB and G are quite different, determined when convenient by the political powers. Rights are not equal or guaranteed by any means, past or present.
Rights to vote, work, travel, free speech, even to live are strictly limited in that part of the world.
Palestinians have no more right to land or a state than any other racial or religious group throughout the muslim or third world is given, less so than kurds, armeneans etc.
Women and children deserve more rights than palestinians. When the palestinians recognize Israel and give up the war rhetoric and charter, then they will be deserving of building a state.
ISIS might control land in syria and iraq but the world is not ready to recognize their rights to a state. The world did not recognize the taliban when they controlled Afghanistan.
When palestinians are ready, their rights will be recognized and become law. If they act like animals towards even their own, they deserve no consideration by the world as capable of separate rights as a people or state.
 
Of course, there could be a compromise where a secular state is formed where all people of Palestine, of whatever religion, have equal rights.
With the palistanian "rights" more equal, than those of others, of course.
No, equal rights for all.
Why? Surely, palistanians have their equal rights in their palistan.

Yes, the Australians in Palistan have the same rights as other Australians.



While the Palestinian Christians are being ethnically cleansed from Palestine and being treated as 4th class citizens

Palestinian Christians are being ethnically cleansed and murdered by your Jew brethren.

"PITTSBURGH

Palestinian Christians are under attack in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israeli settlers have been vandalizing Palestinian churches, monasteries, cemeteries, and other Christian institutions and property in alarming numbers over the past three years.

These crimes are thought to be part of the larger “price-tag” movement, a campaign started by Israeli settlers in 2011 both to intimidate Palestinians into leaving their land and to establish a punitive “price” Palestinians must pay for perceived setbacks to the security and geographic expansion of the Jewish state.

"Price tag" attacks are not aimed exclusively at Christian Palestinians. Secular and Muslim Palestinians are regularly victimized by the price tag attacks as well. But many attacks have, indeed, targeted Christian institutions."

A Palestinian monastery near Jerusalem, for example, was firebombed and vandalized on Aug. 19. The walls of the Beit Jamal monastery, which is inhabited by the Sisters of Bethlehem order, were defaced with Stars of David and the words “price tag,” “death to Gentiles” and “revenge” written in Hebrew. "

Presbyterian Church U.S.A. - News Announcements - Palestinian Christians under attack
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence is simply not as easy to declare as the Arab Palestinian or you think.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate and certainly not true.

RoccoR said:
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
That part was removed when it was rewritten as the Treaty of Lausanne which was ratified. That removal affirms that Palestine was provisionally recognized as an independent state.
-------------------
Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
-----------------------
The way the mandate went down was clearly a violation of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians.
(COMMENT)

The interpretation, whether ratified or not, was none the less --- that of the Allied Powers --- who also wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, which does not mention Palestine at all. Palestine was never singled-out by the Allied Powers. Remember, all these interpretations were on events that happened in the early 1920's. The recounting happened in the late 1940's; after all the interpretations were ironed-out.

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the Arab Agency as an advisory element on the administration of the territory under mandate.

Lastly, there were no violations of the LoN Covenant and the rights of the Palestinians were not violated. The same authorities that wrote the Mandate also wrote the Covenant. The Arab Palestinians simply did not comply with the acceptable processes leading to independence.

Most Respectfully,
R
There was no special processes required. They were the natives inside a defined territory. They already had the right to independence. And they still do.
(COMMENT)

Well, there certainly are process that need to be coordinated and debts to assume, and civil services to be established, and a hundred other functions that were transferred from the Ottoman to the Mandatory --- and then --- presumably to the successor government. Unlike the simplicity you present here, there is a lot more to becoming a nation then just waking-up one morning and saying: We are a new nation. Yes, there are processes required, just as there were when the Mandatory assumed governmental authority. And it is all these other functions of Government that are needed that make, even unto today, the Arab Palestinians unable to stand alone. Every year, like the beggars on the street corner, the Palestinians need help organizing a "Donor's Conference;" for which it is totally dependent.

The "defined territory" is a territory capture, defined and administered from the Ottoman Empire and surrendered to the Allied Power, not the indigenous population.

The League of Nations recognized the "right" of the Arab, but also observed that the Arab in the Palestine under Mandate was not capable of establishing a self government.

The right of the Arab Palestinian - today - does not exists were it conflicts with the right of the Israeli - today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Some posters talk about rights like the Ottoman or arab world was a democracy. Women, children and servants were property and did not have individual rights except what the dominant male of the family gave them.
Rights in the muslim world were not automatic, equal and certainly not universal to all.
Rights as we talk about them are given by the state, each country has their own variation. What we call the universal human rights is a wish list made by the UN, but not all people in all lands have those rights.
Slavery was still legal in the arab world till 1965, and in some areas is still common place despite any laws prohibiting. Indenture and child apprenticeship are also used as forms of slavery to this day. Such people are given very little if any rights or consideration.
Just people cause a people happen to live does not mean they have rights. Rights have to be recognized and protected under law, laws made by men. Even so called god's laws mean nothing unless men are willing to grant them. Life in the middle east and muslim world have little meaning as we see everyday in the news.
Talk of palestinian rights mean nothing in most host countries. Even in the PA, rights in the WB and G are quite different, determined when convenient by the political powers. Rights are not equal or guaranteed by any means, past or present.
Rights to vote, work, travel, free speech, even to live are strictly limited in that part of the world.
Palestinians have no more right to land or a state than any other racial or religious group throughout the muslim or third world is given, less so than kurds, armeneans etc.
Women and children deserve more rights than palestinians. When the palestinians recognize Israel and give up the war rhetoric and charter, then they will be deserving of building a state.
ISIS might control land in syria and iraq but the world is not ready to recognize their rights to a state. The world did not recognize the taliban when they controlled Afghanistan.
When palestinians are ready, their rights will be recognized and become law. If they act like animals towards even their own, they deserve no consideration by the world as capable of separate rights as a people or state.

Hasbara propaganda, no one believes it anymore. Why should any people recognize the theft of their land and their expulsion?
 
With the palistanian "rights" more equal, than those of others, of course.
No, equal rights for all.
Why? Surely, palistanians have their equal rights in their palistan.

Yes, the Australians in Palistan have the same rights as other Australians.



While the Palestinian Christians are being ethnically cleansed from Palestine and being treated as 4th class citizens

Palestinian Christians are being ethnically cleansed and murdered by your Jew brethren.

"PITTSBURGH

Palestinian Christians are under attack in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israeli settlers have been vandalizing Palestinian churches, monasteries, cemeteries, and other Christian institutions and property in alarming numbers over the past three years.

These crimes are thought to be part of the larger “price-tag” movement, a campaign started by Israeli settlers in 2011 both to intimidate Palestinians into leaving their land and to establish a punitive “price” Palestinians must pay for perceived setbacks to the security and geographic expansion of the Jewish state.

"Price tag" attacks are not aimed exclusively at Christian Palestinians. Secular and Muslim Palestinians are regularly victimized by the price tag attacks as well. But many attacks have, indeed, targeted Christian institutions."

A Palestinian monastery near Jerusalem, for example, was firebombed and vandalized on Aug. 19. The walls of the Beit Jamal monastery, which is inhabited by the Sisters of Bethlehem order, were defaced with Stars of David and the words “price tag,” “death to Gentiles” and “revenge” written in Hebrew. "

Presbyterian Church U.S.A. - News Announcements - Palestinian Christians under attack
If you would speak to some Presbyterians here in the U.S., they would tell you that they have gotten disgusted with their church leaders because of their stand on Israel and that their leaders are closing their eyes to all the Christians being murdered by Muslims around the world to just concentrate on Israel. Meanwhile, I think I will go along with this Priest who lives in Israel.

Christian Priest to UN Stop the Witch Hunt Against Israel - Israel Today Israel News
 
Then explain the one stood on a rock that does not even flinch when the first rounds are heard. No muzzle flashes from the direction of the vehicles to show that the people there had fired any weapons. And if you look even closer all the alleged IDF soldiers are behind the rear vehicles side panels as at least 6 rounds are fired

This film clip is shot by well meaning amateurs, who after the rounds are heard concentrate on filming the vehicles, oblivious of the fact that the fire is coming from the soldiers you see adopting the prone position at around the 25 second mark in the video to the left of the main group of vehicles. Clearly you have never been around real guns or you would know you can't see muzzle flashes in daylight very easily if at all, especially as most military rifles have flash suppressors fitted. You are more likely to see a small amount gunsmoke (depending on the type of ammo used) or a little dust kicked up in front of the barrel. I am however inclined to agree with your earlier post that some sound effects may have been added for effect, as at that range, gunshots are more likely to sound like snapping twigs and would not be that loud. I think you'll find I mentioned the "bird on the rock" in my last post.

Phoenall said:
Then you know nothing about fishing in the Med or anywhere else. The nets were of a coarse rope material not monofilament as is usual ( 100 metres of mono gill net costs about £100 sterling, 100 metres of coarse cargo net costs about £1,000 STERLING ) The net seen is cargo netting and is only small, so no good for catching fish but fine for catching boxes of weapons or ammunition.

Most of the netting being reeled in was of the fine mesh variety although there was some nor coarse netting seen for a second or two before the firing started but its unclear if it was part of the actual net being reeled out or had just gotten in the way and was being moved, anyway why shouldn't a fishing boat also have coarse netting on board? The original footage came from the Al Hiwar Satellite TV Channel and is a lot longer than the clip posted. If the Zionist JSIL navy really believed these fishermen were trying to smuggle arms into Gaza, they'd stop the boat and search it. This was just another incident to show the Palestinians who the boss is. Several fishermen have been killed by the IDF in the past and these events are commonplace as part of the ongoing siege.



Phoenall said:
The rules go out the window when you engage in terrorist activities and then you are placed behind a wall...

So these fishermen are "terrorists" and your evidence for this assertion is?




If they are deliberately going outside the area to incite a reaction then they are acting as terrorists, just as the human shields are acting as terrorists. They do not have to commit an act of violence to be a terrorist, just support the terrorists in some manner.


So that's a resounding NO then, you have no evidence for your assertion. Thanks.
 
Challenger, et al,

I looked at the video several times. I don't see an "attack."

So these fishermen are "terrorists" and your evidence for this assertion is?
(COMMENT)

What I do see is an approach and interdiction by a fast patrol boat. It seems to me to be a pretty standard interdiction. The shots fired were clearly in the water, attempting to warn-off multiple fishing boats attempting to violate the standing Notice to Mariners.

It appears to be an attempt at creating an incident for media shock value.

As soon as you hear the one female camera operator shout that they are in "International Waters," --- you know right away that they are in violation of the block established by the Israeli Navy under the San Remo Manual.

While there is no evidence that the operators were terrorists, there is not obvious evidence that they were engaged in fishing activity. It appears to be a provoked confrontation in order to capture video of an Israel interdiction on restricted waters.

I would not use this video in attempting to prove your point. It doesn't do it very well.

BTW, I think this might be an older video. The Israel Patrol Boat seems to be of the Dubar Class (older series).

Most Respectfully,
R

The Notice to Mariners states that the Gaza Maritime Area extends 20Nm from the coast. If the Palestinian fishermen were within that area the Zionist JSIL navy has no right or reason to open fire on the boats. They could achieve the same effect, i.e. interdiction, using a loud hailer, or other form of signaling. They could order the boat to heave to and be boarded. They would only be "entitled" to fire warning shots if these measures failed. There is no evidence from that film clip of any attempt to communicate other than by opening fire.
 
The Notice to Mariners states that the Gaza Maritime Area extends 20Nm from the coast. If the Palestinian fishermen were within that area the Zionist JSIL navy has no right or reason to open fire on the boats. They could achieve the same effect, i.e. interdiction, using a loud hailer, or other form of signaling. They could order the boat to heave to and be boarded. They would only be "entitled" to fire warning shots if these measures failed. There is no evidence from that film clip of any attempt to communicate other than by opening fire.
Which is clear evidence that, a creative video-editing took place, of course. What's the arabic for agitprop?
 
Challenger, et al,

You can raise those points, but the evidence does not support it.

Challenger, et al,

I looked at the video several times. I don't see an "attack."

So these fishermen are "terrorists" and your evidence for this assertion is?
(COMMENT)

What I do see is an approach and interdiction by a fast patrol boat. It seems to me to be a pretty standard interdiction. The shots fired were clearly in the water, attempting to warn-off multiple fishing boats attempting to violate the standing Notice to Mariners.

It appears to be an attempt at creating an incident for media shock value.

As soon as you hear the one female camera operator shout that they are in "International Waters," --- you know right away that they are in violation of the block established by the Israeli Navy under the San Remo Manual.

While there is no evidence that the operators were terrorists, there is not obvious evidence that they were engaged in fishing activity. It appears to be a provoked confrontation in order to capture video of an Israel interdiction on restricted waters.

I would not use this video in attempting to prove your point. It doesn't do it very well.

BTW, I think this might be an older video. The Israel Patrol Boat seems to be of the Dubar Class (older series).

Most Respectfully,
R

The Notice to Mariners states that the Gaza Maritime Area extends 20Nm from the coast. If the Palestinian fishermen were within that area the Zionist JSIL navy has no right or reason to open fire on the boats. They could achieve the same effect, i.e. interdiction, using a loud hailer, or other form of signaling. They could order the boat to heave to and be boarded. They would only be "entitled" to fire warning shots if these measures failed. There is no evidence from that film clip of any attempt to communicate other than by opening fire.
(COMMENT)

The Notice to Mariners NO. 1/2009 Blockade of Gaza Strip is not based on a 20Nm standard. It is based on a geo-coordinate enclosure; as are all blockades established under the San Remo Manual.

NO. 1/2009 Blockade of Gaza Strip Created: 06 January 2009
    1. Subject: Blockade of Gaza Strip
    2. Source : Israeli Navy
All mariners are advised that as of 03 January 2009, 1700 UTC, Gaza maritime area is closed to all maritime trafic and is under blockade imposed by Israeli Navy until further notice.
Maritime Gaza area is enclosed by the following coordinates:


31 35.71 N 34 29.46 E
31 46.80 N 34 10.01 E
31 19.39 N 34 13.11 E
31 33.73 N 33 56.68 E

Based on the clip, there is no evidence to the exact location other than the staged film crew shouting that they are in "International Waters." There is no evidence that the IDF/Israeli Navy Patrol did NOT attempt radio contact or other forms of communication. The absence of evidence in the presentation does not mean that it did not happen.

Warning shots, since the time before radio, have been used as a legitimate signal.

The video neither proves or disproves anything.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
A blockade is an act of war.

We play this game every month or so.........
>>International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic. He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations.<<
 

Forum List

Back
Top