Who Are The Palestinains?

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't equate "military control" with "sovereignty." That would be "occupation."

You seem to think that military control equals sovereignty. Alien domination like occupation and colonization are violations of the people's right to sovereignty. Since these counter the people's right to sovereignty they must be imposed by military force.

(COMMENT)

Here, you are talking about a "belligerent occupation."

Indeed, Palestine was born under belligerent occupation that continues today.


There are a few things wrong with this assumption.


OK, but Palestine is still occupied.


The occupied people must disarm while the occupying power keeps its military?

What kind of crap is that?

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians haven't assumed the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Which one of these did you object to --- again.

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Most Respectfully,
R

Actually, the Palestinians don't have to disarm. They also don't have to renounce terrorism. In fact, they don't have to change anything they're doing.

But if they don't, things will remain the same for the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Not much to go on here.

Indeed, Palestine was born under belligerent occupation that continues today.

There are a few things wrong with this assumption.

OK, but Palestine is still occupied.

The occupied people must disarm while the occupying power keeps its military?

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration[/indent]

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Palestinians are "occupied" in the West Bank. But it was not colonized. That is simply grasping at straws --- a fools errand, and subterfuge.

Relative to the West Bank, the international boundaries are attested to in Article 3 - International Boundary, 1994 Treaty between Israel - and - Jordan.

The experts also pointed out that differences in the level of control exerted by the occupant within the occupied territory would have an impact on choosing the model to be applied. The implementation of law-and-order activities would require a significant degree of control over the area or situation under scrutiny. The experts argued that variations in control in the occupied territory, as exemplified by the Oslo agreements between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel, would inevitably require the occupying power to reconsider its responses to threats posed by insurgent armed groups. According to some participants, in areas of operation where the occupying power was “firmly in control,” application of the law enforcement model was indicated. On the other hand, some experts were of the view that the ‘conduct-of-hostilities’ model should apply in areas where occupying forces have less control, where it would be very difficult to capture members of enemy forces without exposing the occupying troops to increased risks and where the immediate danger posed by the enemy would be greater.

SOURCE: THEORIES AND CONDITIONS FOR DETERMINING THE LEGAL MODEL APPLICABLE, ICRC Report Meeting of Experts, March 2012

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Yes, the Palestinians are "occupied" in the West Bank. But it was not colonized.

What is the difference between building settlements and populating them with colonists, from colonization? Just wondering.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici; et al,

Sensible question.

(COMMENT)
Yes, the Palestinians are "occupied" in the West Bank. But it was not colonized.

What is the difference between building settlements and populating them with colonists, from colonization? Just wondering.

(COMMENT)

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty. (See General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” It does not deny self-determination.​

Two different concepts and two different sets of international laws. Colonies are not subject to the ICRC Geneva Convention. The people are on protected persons, by fall under the laws of the Colonial Power. In contrast, Occupied Territories extent a measure of protection to the populace under occupation and effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici; et al,

Sensible question.

(COMMENT)
Yes, the Palestinians are "occupied" in the West Bank. But it was not colonized.

What is the difference between building settlements and populating them with colonists, from colonization? Just wondering.

(COMMENT)

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty. (See General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” It does not deny self-determination.​

Two different concepts and two different sets of international laws. Colonies are not subject to the ICRC Geneva Convention. The people are on protected persons, by fall under the laws of the Colonial Power. In contrast, Occupied Territories extent a measure of protection to the populace under occupation and effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty

Well, that's exactly what the Jews are doing. Sei un buffone, e un terrone ignorante. Si vede da quello che scrivi.

 

[MJB12741]

The settlements are on land captured during a war to annihilate Israel. Do you think maybe the Arabs made a bad miscalculation & the Palestinians got screwed by their own Arab brothers in the surrounding Arab countries?

montelatici; et al,

Sensible question.

What is the difference between building settlements and populating them with colonists, from colonization? Just wondering.

(COMMENT)

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty. (See General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” It does not deny self-determination.​

Two different concepts and two different sets of international laws. Colonies are not subject to the ICRC Geneva Convention. The people are on protected persons, by fall under the laws of the Colonial Power. In contrast, Occupied Territories extent a measure of protection to the populace under occupation and effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty

Well, that's exactly what the Jews are doing. Sei un buffone, e un terrone ignorante. Si vede da quello che scrivi.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Not even close.

montelatici; et al,

Sensible question.

What is the difference between building settlements and populating them with colonists, from colonization? Just wondering.

(COMMENT)

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty. (See General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” It does not deny self-determination.​

Two different concepts and two different sets of international laws. Colonies are not subject to the ICRC Geneva Convention. The people are on protected persons, by fall under the laws of the Colonial Power. In contrast, Occupied Territories extent a measure of protection to the populace under occupation and effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty

Well, that's exactly what the Jews are doing. Sei un buffone, e un terrone ignorante. Si vede da quello che scrivi.

(COMMENT)

Under Israeli Occupation, the Palestinian's were allow to Declare Independence (the most direct example in the right of self-determination).

Under Israeli Occupation, the Palestinian Enemy Population is placed under the effective control, quarantine, and containment to prevent acts of violence against the people of Israel, to separate the Israeli citizens from further Palestinian criminal activity, and to protect the integrity of Israeli sovereign territory.

The Settlement, as discussed earlier, are a matter under the Article V, Permanent Status Negotiations, Oslo Accord; best settled under those processes or new processes established under A/RES/25/2625.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici; et al,

Sensible question.

(COMMENT)
Yes, the Palestinians are "occupied" in the West Bank. But it was not colonized.

What is the difference between building settlements and populating them with colonists, from colonization? Just wondering.

(COMMENT)

Colonization specifically is the subjugation (act of forcing into submission) of a people or the claim to territory - which involves the denial of the right to self-determination and the extension of foreign sovereignty. (See General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” It does not deny self-determination.​

Two different concepts and two different sets of international laws. Colonies are not subject to the ICRC Geneva Convention. The people are on protected persons, by fall under the laws of the Colonial Power. In contrast, Occupied Territories extent a measure of protection to the populace under occupation and effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is interesting that Israel fits squarely into both of those categories.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are losing it!

It is interesting that Israel fits squarely into both of those categories.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians either have a Arab State of Palestine, with a Settlement Issue; or, they are under the sovereign protection as a colony of Israel; which negates entirely the settlement issue and the protected persons status.

It cannot be the case that both are true, simultaneously.

You are attempting to use "colonialism" as a means of subterfuge; but, in doing so, you are actually arguing that Israel has a greater degree of standing in the territories than they have.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

I agree with Tinmore to the extent that the Palestinians should have their own Palestinian State with self determination void of any intervention by Israel. Wouldn't that be wonderful, especially for Israel without having the Palestinians suck off of Israel for their well being? The question is WHERE can this be as no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return back to their indigenous homelands? Any suggestions as to where to free the Palestinians from Israel's bondage of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions keeping them in Israel?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are losing it!

It is interesting that Israel fits squarely into both of those categories.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians either have a Arab State of Palestine, with a Settlement Issue; or, they are under the sovereign protection as a colony of Israel; which negates entirely the settlement issue and the protected persons status.

It cannot be the case that both are true, simultaneously.

You are attempting to use "colonialism" as a means of subterfuge; but, in doing so, you are actually arguing that Israel has a greater degree of standing in the territories than they have.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians haven't assumed the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Which one of these did you object to --- again.

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

 

[Phoenall]

The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians haven't assumed the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Which one of these did you object to --- again.

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Jordan's for starters followed by Egypt's and Lebanon's. I cant say Israel's because Israel does not have any borders with Palestine because Palestine refuses to negotiate them.
In fact their attacks on sovereign nations are so bad the nations have asked Israel to help out by patrolling their borders with Palestine to stop the terror attacks.

 

[Phoenall]

The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians haven't assumed the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Which one of these did you object to --- again.

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Jordanm Lebanon and Egypt for starters, they also violated Germanies, Britains, Americas and most of Europes.

 

[Kondor3]

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians haven't assumed the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Which one of these did you object to --- again.

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Jordanm Lebanon and Egypt for starters, they also violated Germanies, Britains, Americas and most of Europes.

Not to mention the boundaries of humanity, decency, common sense, and good taste.

A tacky, low-brow folk...

 

[P F Tinmore]

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians haven't assumed the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Which one of these did you object to --- again.

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Jordan's for starters followed by Egypt's and Lebanon's. I cant say Israel's because Israel does not have any borders with Palestine because Palestine refuses to negotiate them.
In fact their attacks on sovereign nations are so bad the nations have asked Israel to help out by patrolling their borders with Palestine to stop the terror attacks.

Glad to see that the Palestinians have the authority to negotiate their borders.

 

[Phoenall]

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Jordan's for starters followed by Egypt's and Lebanon's. I cant say Israel's because Israel does not have any borders with Palestine because Palestine refuses to negotiate them.
In fact their attacks on sovereign nations are so bad the nations have asked Israel to help out by patrolling their borders with Palestine to stop the terror attacks.

Glad to see that the Palestinians have the authority to negotiate their borders.

They have had that right since 1947 when the partition plan was passed by the UN. Now why haven't they negotiated those borders as outlined in 242 and 338. Care to show what the palestinians have actually negotiated in regards to peace and mutual borders

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan's for starters followed by Egypt's and Lebanon's. I cant say Israel's because Israel does not have any borders with Palestine because Palestine refuses to negotiate them.
In fact their attacks on sovereign nations are so bad the nations have asked Israel to help out by patrolling their borders with Palestine to stop the terror attacks.

Glad to see that the Palestinians have the authority to negotiate their borders.

They have had that right since 1947 when the partition plan was passed by the UN. Now why haven't they negotiated those borders as outlined in 242 and 338. Care to show what the palestinians have actually negotiated in regards to peace and mutual borders

The Palestinians rejected the proposed change in their international borders in 1947 and they had the right to do that.

There is no requirement for the Palestinians to negotiate any change in their borders.

 

[toastman]

Again, what international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

Jordan's for starters followed by Egypt's and Lebanon's. I cant say Israel's because Israel does not have any borders with Palestine because Palestine refuses to negotiate them.
In fact their attacks on sovereign nations are so bad the nations have asked Israel to help out by patrolling their borders with Palestine to stop the terror attacks.

Glad to see that the Palestinians have the authority to negotiate their borders.

Palestine does not have any borders

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan's for starters followed by Egypt's and Lebanon's. I cant say Israel's because Israel does not have any borders with Palestine because Palestine refuses to negotiate them.
In fact their attacks on sovereign nations are so bad the nations have asked Israel to help out by patrolling their borders with Palestine to stop the terror attacks.

Glad to see that the Palestinians have the authority to negotiate their borders.

Palestine does not have any borders

I have proven many times that it does.

Why do you always come back pimping Israel's lies?

 

[Roudy]

Glad to see that the Palestinians have the authority to negotiate their borders.

Palestine does not have any borders

I have proven many times that it does.

Why do you always come back pimping Israel's lies?

Seems like you're the one pimping Hamas lies all the time. Give it up. Just because you have associations with Palestinian Arabs doesn't give legitimacy to their claims.