Praying at the temple mount

[Penelope]

Typical Pro Palestinian with his unrefined Dirty Mouth .

I'm not "Pro-Palestinian". I could care less about either side.

FUCK OFF you piece of SHIT

No, I think I'll hang around.

Whacha got to say to that, ILOVESUCKINGISRAELIDICK?

I get told to leave and take a hike all the time, I just ignore it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Illegally?

Who's law were they breaking, Nazi Boi? The British, who had legal jurisdiction invited them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have no fucking clue!

I just know its their mosque, not yours.

And it's in East Jerusalem. It's illegal for you even to be in that area.

Illegal for Jews to be in East Jerusalem?

So you are supporting Apartheid against Jews, Nazi Boi?

 

[montelatici]

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Illegally?

Who's law were they breaking, Nazi Boi? The British, who had legal jurisdiction invited them.

How can people on the European continent legally invite people from that same continent to commit ethnic cleansing of the people living on a territory on another continent?

Oh wait, the British did the same thing to the Native Americans, so it must be legal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How can people on the European continent legally invite people from that same continent to commit ethnic cleansing of the people living on a territory on another continent?

Oh wait, the British did the same thing to the Native Americans, so it must be legal.

Simple, the people from Turkey who held this EMPIRE attacked Britain and lost.

In losing, they lost the Empire.

Don't you Muslims get any education at all?

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinians were not Turks. What do they have to do with it? By the way, am a Roman Catholic and far more educated than you will ever be.

Covenant of the League of Nations

"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 and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Phoenall]

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Illegally?

Who's law were they breaking, Nazi Boi? The British, who had legal jurisdiction invited them.

How can people on the European continent legally invite people from that same continent to commit ethnic cleansing of the people living on a territory on another continent?

Oh wait, the British did the same thing to the Native Americans, so it must be legal.

It is all down to the international laws in force at the time. And those were to the victors go the spoils, so the LoN acquired sovereignty over the Ottoman lands and partitioned those lands giving the indigenous Jews the land of Judea and Samaria as their NATIONal home

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Palestinians were not Turks.

There are no "Palestinians," never were. It is a purely political creation.

The Ottoman Turks were the empire that held the region called Palestine, which is Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and much of Syria.

The Ottomans attacked Britain and France, and lost, after which their empire fell, and the Brits took over administration.

What do they have to do with it? By the way, am a Roman Catholic and far more educated than you will ever be.

I'm 6 months from a Ph.D. Try again.

Covenant of the League of Nations

"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 and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Irrelevant, it was up to the British who held that the Jews could live - which offends Muslims and Nazis. Israel was established as a homeland for the Jews. The Arabs retained 90% of the land mass that was Ottoman Palestine, but Muslims and Nazis will not tolerate a single grain of sand that is not under Muslim rule.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before. The accuracy of this statement depends on who you talk to and when.

Rocco, your Zionist propagandist credentials are confirmed.

Firstly, Palestinians have nothing against "the Jewish people". They have nothing against Jews in New York, Rome, Paris etc., as long as they don't finance the arming of Zionists in Israel. The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims alike, know they have a moral and legal right to fight to recover homes and lands stolen from their ancestors by the European Jewish invader.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee, representing the Palestinian People said:

• "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."

This self-defense claim has been used ever since.

The Palestinian Christians haven't declared a Jihad against the Zionists, if need be, their resistance against the Zionists would be called a Crusade, which is in line with their Christian culture. The Muslim Palestinians call it a Jihad. In both cases it is a struggle against a powerful nuclear armed invader that is supported by the most powerful nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

There is no significant number of non-Muslims that could possibly make a difference.

• Gaza Strip: Muslim 98.0 - 99.0% (predominantly Sunni), Christian <1.0%, other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0%
• West Bank: Muslim 80.0 - 85.0% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 12.0 - 14.0%, Christian 1.0 - 2.5% (mainly Greek Orthodox), other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0%
​

Armed resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from the Zionists. The Zionists (just as the whites in South Africa vis-a-vis the non-whites) will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control.

(COMMENT)

You say that "(t)he Zionists will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control."

• Jewish 75%, Muslim 17.5%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 3.9% (2013 est.)​

You are right: In most democratic and republic states, laws and policies require majority support in parliament, but the rights of minorities are protected in various other ways.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 1968

• The term “majority rule” stands for a rule of decision making within a specified group. At its simplest, the rule requires that the vote of each member shall be counted as equal to that of every other and that no vote or decision by a minority may override that of a majority.

A few legal points (there are many more) regarding occupation that illustrate that the nonsense you write is ridiculous Zionist propaganda.:

1. The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. It cannot be forced to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.

(COMMENT) I never said anything to the contrary. International Humanitarian Law say there are consequences for activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power or guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,

A2. The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (See settlement activity)

(COMMENT) You don't address the entire relevance of Article 49 and Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

Elements of the offense for Article 7 (1) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population:

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly12 transferred,13 without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.

2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.

4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Footnotes

12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
​

A3. After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

(COMMENT) You did not represent this properly. It also says that:

Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status.

It is generally understood that the State of Israel does not recognise those who engage in resistance activities, either as combatants or as protesters, as “political” prisoners as this would confer legitimacy on the cause that motivates them. Instead they are termed ordinary criminals, security prisoners or, most frequently, “terrorists”.

ARGUMENT: Under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 combatants only qualify as prisoners of war if they are members of the armed forces or organized resistance movement of a Party to the conflict. And, as the law stood in 1949, this meant a State Party to the Geneva Conventions . Since Palestinian resistance fighters do not belong to any State they do not qualify for prisoner of war status – under the law of 1949.

In any event, they are either handled as armed criminals or handled armed combatants. This is one of those gray areas that need to be resolved.
​

A4.Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.

(COMMENT) That is correct. I am not concerned with the "Protected Persons Status" of indirect support, relative to ordinary criminal activity.

A5. Destruction of property. The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations . (Israeli home demolitions)

(COMMENT) This is justified as a justified by security necessity. Elements of the Offense:

Article 8 (2) (a) (iv) War crime of destruction and appropriation of property Elements

1. The perpetrator destroyed or appropriated certain property.

2. The destruction or appropriation was not justified by military necessity.

3. The destruction or appropriation was extensive and carried out wantonly.

4. Such property was protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

6. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
​

A6. The occupying power must not compel members of the population to serve in its armed forces. Doing so constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Any pressure or propaganda aimed at securing enlistment is also prohibited. The ban applies to participation in military operations and even mere recruitment into the forces, whether armed, paramilitary or auxiliary. For example, it is prohibited to use members of the population to fight the resistance in an occupied country. (Offering citizenship or other inducements to non-Jews to join IDF is prohibited)

(COMMENT): Nonsense... First, this prohibition is relative to the recruitment of those under Occupation. It does not apply to the recruitment of any other national.

Article 8 (2) (a) (v) War crime of compelling service in hostile forces Elements

1. The perpetrator coerced one or more persons, by act or threat, to take part in military operations against that person’s own country or forces or otherwise serve in the forces of a hostile power.

2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
​

Such a program, if it existed, would not be much different that that of the US. But I'm skeptical that what you describe exists.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

What are you implying?

The Palestinians were not Turks. What do they have to do with it? By the way, am a Roman Catholic and far more educated than you will ever be.

Covenant of the League of Nations

"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 and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

(COMMENT)

Article 22 does not identify any specific "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having reach a stage of development. For all you know, they could have been (and probably were) talking about the Emirate of Transjordan.

The Arabs of Palestine have never really demonstrated that they could stand alone. So, how do you know that Article 22 works in the Arab Palestinians favor?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Illegally?

Who's law were they breaking, Nazi Boi? The British, who had legal jurisdiction invited them.

Don't give me that "deer-in-the-headlights" bullshit!

You never heard the term Aliyah Bet?

Aliyah Bet was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to Mandatory Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.

Over 100,000 people attempted to illegally enter Palestine. There were 142 voyages by 120 ships. Over half were stopped by the British patrols.
​

I guess the British didn't invite all of them, dumbass!

​

 

[Billo_Really]

Illegal for Jews to be in East Jerusalem?

So you are supporting Apartheid against Jews, Nazi Boi?

It is illegal for Israeli settlers and the Israeli government to be in East Jerusalem.

It is legal for Palestinian-Jews (who were living there prior to 1948) to be there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before. The accuracy of this statement depends on who you talk to and when.

Rocco, your Zionist propagandist credentials are confirmed.

Firstly, Palestinians have nothing against "the Jewish people". They have nothing against Jews in New York, Rome, Paris etc., as long as they don't finance the arming of Zionists in Israel. The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims alike, know they have a moral and legal right to fight to recover homes and lands stolen from their ancestors by the European Jewish invader.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee, representing the Palestinian People said:

• "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."

This self-defense claim has been used ever since.

The Palestinian Christians haven't declared a Jihad against the Zionists, if need be, their resistance against the Zionists would be called a Crusade, which is in line with their Christian culture. The Muslim Palestinians call it a Jihad. In both cases it is a struggle against a powerful nuclear armed invader that is supported by the most powerful nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

There is no significant number of non-Muslims that could possibly make a difference.

• Gaza Strip: Muslim 98.0 - 99.0% (predominantly Sunni), Christian <1.0%, other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0%
• West Bank: Muslim 80.0 - 85.0% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 12.0 - 14.0%, Christian 1.0 - 2.5% (mainly Greek Orthodox), other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0%
​

Armed resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from the Zionists. The Zionists (just as the whites in South Africa vis-a-vis the non-whites) will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control.

(COMMENT)

You say that "(t)he Zionists will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control."

• Jewish 75%, Muslim 17.5%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 3.9% (2013 est.)​

You are right: In most democratic and republic states, laws and policies require majority support in parliament, but the rights of minorities are protected in various other ways.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 1968

• The term “majority rule” stands for a rule of decision making within a specified group. At its simplest, the rule requires that the vote of each member shall be counted as equal to that of every other and that no vote or decision by a minority may override that of a majority.

A few legal points (there are many more) regarding occupation that illustrate that the nonsense you write is ridiculous Zionist propaganda.:

1. The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. It cannot be forced to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.

(COMMENT) I never said anything to the contrary. International Humanitarian Law say there are consequences for activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power or guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,

A2. The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (See settlement activity)

(COMMENT) You don't address the entire relevance of Article 49 and Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

Elements of the offense for Article 7 (1) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population:

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly12 transferred,13 without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.

2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.

4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Footnotes

12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
​

A3. After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

(COMMENT) You did not represent this properly. It also says that:

Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status.

It is generally understood that the State of Israel does not recognise those who engage in resistance activities, either as combatants or as protesters, as “political” prisoners as this would confer legitimacy on the cause that motivates them. Instead they are termed ordinary criminals, security prisoners or, most frequently, “terrorists”.

ARGUMENT: Under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 combatants only qualify as prisoners of war if they are members of the armed forces or organized resistance movement of a Party to the conflict. And, as the law stood in 1949, this meant a State Party to the Geneva Conventions . Since Palestinian resistance fighters do not belong to any State they do not qualify for prisoner of war status – under the law of 1949.

In any event, they are either handled as armed criminals or handled armed combatants. This is one of those gray areas that need to be resolved.
​

A4.Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.

(COMMENT) That is correct. I am not concerned with the "Protected Persons Status" of indirect support, relative to ordinary criminal activity.

A5. Destruction of property. The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations . (Israeli home demolitions)

(COMMENT) This is justified as a justified by security necessity. Elements of the Offense:

Article 8 (2) (a) (iv) War crime of destruction and appropriation of property Elements

1. The perpetrator destroyed or appropriated certain property.

2. The destruction or appropriation was not justified by military necessity.

3. The destruction or appropriation was extensive and carried out wantonly.

4. Such property was protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

6. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
​

A6. The occupying power must not compel members of the population to serve in its armed forces. Doing so constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Any pressure or propaganda aimed at securing enlistment is also prohibited. The ban applies to participation in military operations and even mere recruitment into the forces, whether armed, paramilitary or auxiliary. For example, it is prohibited to use members of the population to fight the resistance in an occupied country. (Offering citizenship or other inducements to non-Jews to join IDF is prohibited)

(COMMENT): Nonsense... First, this prohibition is relative to the recruitment of those under Occupation. It does not apply to the recruitment of any other national.

Article 8 (2) (a) (v) War crime of compelling service in hostile forces Elements

1. The perpetrator coerced one or more persons, by act or threat, to take part in military operations against that person’s own country or forces or otherwise serve in the forces of a hostile power.

2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
​

Such a program, if it existed, would not be much different that that of the US. But I'm skeptical that what you describe exists.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you.

Israel has violated almost everything you posted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

What are you implying?

The Palestinians were not Turks. What do they have to do with it? By the way, am a Roman Catholic and far more educated than you will ever be.

Covenant of the League of Nations

"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 and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

(COMMENT)

Article 22 does not identify any specific "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having reach a stage of development. For all you know, they could have been (and probably were) talking about the Emirate of Transjordan.

The Arabs of Palestine have never really demonstrated that they could stand alone. So, how do you know that Article 22 works in the Arab Palestinians favor?

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was born under belligerent, military occupation and that occupation continues to today. Standing alone has never been an option

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

What are you implying?

The Palestinians were not Turks. What do they have to do with it? By the way, am a Roman Catholic and far more educated than you will ever be.

Covenant of the League of Nations

"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 and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

(COMMENT)

Article 22 does not identify any specific "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having reach a stage of development. For all you know, they could have been (and probably were) talking about the Emirate of Transjordan.

The Arabs of Palestine have never really demonstrated that they could stand alone. So, how do you know that Article 22 works in the Arab Palestinians favor?

Most Respectfully,
R

And because the same covenant applies to all the Mandates this could also have applied to Tanganyika

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before. The accuracy of this statement depends on who you talk to and when.

Rocco, your Zionist propagandist credentials are confirmed.

Firstly, Palestinians have nothing against "the Jewish people". They have nothing against Jews in New York, Rome, Paris etc., as long as they don't finance the arming of Zionists in Israel. The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims alike, know they have a moral and legal right to fight to recover homes and lands stolen from their ancestors by the European Jewish invader.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee, representing the Palestinian People said:

• "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."

This self-defense claim has been used ever since.

The Palestinian Christians haven't declared a Jihad against the Zionists, if need be, their resistance against the Zionists would be called a Crusade, which is in line with their Christian culture. The Muslim Palestinians call it a Jihad. In both cases it is a struggle against a powerful nuclear armed invader that is supported by the most powerful nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

There is no significant number of non-Muslims that could possibly make a difference.

• Gaza Strip: Muslim 98.0 - 99.0% (predominantly Sunni), Christian <1.0%, other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0%
• West Bank: Muslim 80.0 - 85.0% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 12.0 - 14.0%, Christian 1.0 - 2.5% (mainly Greek Orthodox), other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1.0%
​

Armed resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from the Zionists. The Zionists (just as the whites in South Africa vis-a-vis the non-whites) will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control.

(COMMENT)

You say that "(t)he Zionists will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control."

• Jewish 75%, Muslim 17.5%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 3.9% (2013 est.)​

You are right: In most democratic and republic states, laws and policies require majority support in parliament, but the rights of minorities are protected in various other ways.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 1968

• The term “majority rule” stands for a rule of decision making within a specified group. At its simplest, the rule requires that the vote of each member shall be counted as equal to that of every other and that no vote or decision by a minority may override that of a majority.

A few legal points (there are many more) regarding occupation that illustrate that the nonsense you write is ridiculous Zionist propaganda.:

1. The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. It cannot be forced to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.

(COMMENT) I never said anything to the contrary. International Humanitarian Law say there are consequences for activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power or guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,

A2. The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (See settlement activity)

(COMMENT) You don't address the entire relevance of Article 49 and Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

Elements of the offense for Article 7 (1) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population:

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly12 transferred,13 without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.

2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.

4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Footnotes

12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
​

A3. After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

(COMMENT) You did not represent this properly. It also says that:

Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status.

It is generally understood that the State of Israel does not recognise those who engage in resistance activities, either as combatants or as protesters, as “political” prisoners as this would confer legitimacy on the cause that motivates them. Instead they are termed ordinary criminals, security prisoners or, most frequently, “terrorists”.

ARGUMENT: Under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 combatants only qualify as prisoners of war if they are members of the armed forces or organized resistance movement of a Party to the conflict. And, as the law stood in 1949, this meant a State Party to the Geneva Conventions . Since Palestinian resistance fighters do not belong to any State they do not qualify for prisoner of war status – under the law of 1949.

In any event, they are either handled as armed criminals or handled armed combatants. This is one of those gray areas that need to be resolved.
​

A4.Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.

(COMMENT) That is correct. I am not concerned with the "Protected Persons Status" of indirect support, relative to ordinary criminal activity.

A5. Destruction of property. The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations . (Israeli home demolitions)

(COMMENT) This is justified as a justified by security necessity. Elements of the Offense:

Article 8 (2) (a) (iv) War crime of destruction and appropriation of property Elements

1. The perpetrator destroyed or appropriated certain property.

2. The destruction or appropriation was not justified by military necessity.

3. The destruction or appropriation was extensive and carried out wantonly.

4. Such property was protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

6. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
​

A6. The occupying power must not compel members of the population to serve in its armed forces. Doing so constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Any pressure or propaganda aimed at securing enlistment is also prohibited. The ban applies to participation in military operations and even mere recruitment into the forces, whether armed, paramilitary or auxiliary. For example, it is prohibited to use members of the population to fight the resistance in an occupied country. (Offering citizenship or other inducements to non-Jews to join IDF is prohibited)

(COMMENT): Nonsense... First, this prohibition is relative to the recruitment of those under Occupation. It does not apply to the recruitment of any other national.

Article 8 (2) (a) (v) War crime of compelling service in hostile forces Elements

1. The perpetrator coerced one or more persons, by act or threat, to take part in military operations against that person’s own country or forces or otherwise serve in the forces of a hostile power.

2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
​

Such a program, if it existed, would not be much different that that of the US. But I'm skeptical that what you describe exists.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you.

Israel has violated almost everything you posted.

Only in your fantasy world were Palestine rules the world.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

What are you implying?

The Palestinians were not Turks. What do they have to do with it? By the way, am a Roman Catholic and far more educated than you will ever be.

Covenant of the League of Nations

"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 and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

(COMMENT)

Article 22 does not identify any specific "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having reach a stage of development. For all you know, they could have been (and probably were) talking about the Emirate of Transjordan.

The Arabs of Palestine have never really demonstrated that they could stand alone. So, how do you know that Article 22 works in the Arab Palestinians favor?

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was born under belligerent, military occupation and that occupation continues to today. Standing alone has never been an option

So it did not exist before 1988 then, and all your posts saying it did were LIES ?

You forget that from 1917 the "Palestinians" were offered the chance to be part of the New World and they refused

 

[Phoenall]

Illegally?

Who's law were they breaking, Nazi Boi? The British, who had legal jurisdiction invited them.

Don't give me that "deer-in-the-headlights" bullshit!

You never heard the term Aliyah Bet?

Aliyah Bet was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to Mandatory Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948.

Over 100,000 people attempted to illegally enter Palestine. There were 142 voyages by 120 ships. Over half were stopped by the British patrols.
​

I guess the British didn't invite all of them, dumbass!

​

And the white paper was not a law it was a recommendation to parliament to debate a change in the law. It ran out of time and the British could not implement it anyway as they did not control the law making in Palestine.

You really need to research more as you are making a complete arse of yourself.

By the way those 100,000 illegal immigrants were all arab muslims as noted by the same person who introduced the white paper. Just so you know I am in receipt of white papers every year for the government to get my groups input on legislation changes. All they are are brainstorming sessions for the government to get some ideas on what the people want.

 

[Phoenall]

Illegal for Jews to be in East Jerusalem?

So you are supporting Apartheid against Jews, Nazi Boi?

It is illegal for Israeli settlers and the Israeli government to be in East Jerusalem.

It is legal for Palestinian-Jews (who were living there prior to 1948) to be there.

Says who ?

Says who ?


What about Jews who owned land and property in east Jerusalem before they were forcibly evicted by the Palestinians in 1949 ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Illegal for Jews to be in East Jerusalem?

So you are supporting Apartheid against Jews, Nazi Boi?

It is illegal for Israeli settlers and the Israeli government to be in East Jerusalem.

It is legal for Palestinian-Jews (who were living there prior to 1948) to be there.

Says who ?

Says who ?


What about Jews who owned land and property in east Jerusalem before they were forcibly evicted by the Palestinians in 1949 ?

They were not evicted by the Palestinians in 1949.