Who Are The Palestinains?

[MJB12741]

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians did not, thus making it non binding. Bye bye any hopes for a Palestinian State. And lucky for Israel, Palestinian mentality still prevails to this day.

 

[Phoenall]

That is not true.

There was a proposed land to be transferred to Israel in resolution 181 but resolution 181 didn't happen. No land was transferred to Israel.

See you are attempting to remove the Jews rights to self determination by telling lies. The land was transferred to the Jews under 181 as soon as they deposited their declaration with the UN. You can call up as many obscure ISLAMONAZI links as you like the UN and ICJ supersedes them all.

The Resolution as a legal basis for Palestinian statehood[edit]

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.[107] A number of scholars have written in support of this view.[108][109][110]

A General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14 (2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Judge Abdul Koroma explained the majority opinion: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."[111] In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all


United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know how many times Rocco and I have shown Tinmore that both Israel and the Palestinians used 181 for their declaration of independence??
Yet he keeps denying it.

Now he cant as the link shows the International court of Justice had ruled that 181 was valid and legal

 

[MJB12741]

Why does Israel allow Palestinian squatters with no deeds to the land they have been stealing for generations still remain?

 

[Phoenall]

Why does Israel allow Palestinian squatters with no deeds to the land they have been stealing for generations still remain?

Because they are decent humane people who do not like to see others homeless and destitute, so extend the hand of friendship out to them.

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, et al,

There is a mixing of apples and oranges here.

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians did not, thus making it non binding. Bye bye any hopes for a Palestinian State. And lucky for Israel, Palestinian mentality still prevails to this day.

(COMMENT)

The acceptance of the resolution, by either side, has nothing to do with whether the resolution is "binding."

The resolution was much like a contract; with an offer element and an acceptance element.

The resolution could be accepted by either party, but not imposed or forced on either party.

There was a deadline, (August 1948) but not a withdrawal of the offer.

The rejection by the Arabs, represented an unwillingness to participate in the implementation process.

The Arab Parties (the Higher Committee and League) use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- to establish doubt on matters of authority and intention.

The Arab Parties use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- when it is to their advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good post, thanks.

MJB12741, et al,

There is a mixing of apples and oranges here.

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians did not, thus making it non binding. Bye bye any hopes for a Palestinian State. And lucky for Israel, Palestinian mentality still prevails to this day.

(COMMENT)

The acceptance of the resolution, by either side, has nothing to do with whether the resolution is "binding."

The resolution was non binding until it was approved by both sides and implemented by the Security Council. Neither of those things happened.

The resolution was much like a contract; with an offer element and an acceptance element.

Indeed, and until it was accepted by both parties, it was nothing more than an offer.

The resolution could be accepted by either party, but not imposed or forced on either party.

This is the key element. Britain refused to implement the plan without the Palestinian's approval. The Security Council was not prepared to implement the resolution by force. The US withdrew its support and was making an alternate proposal. Resolution 181 was dead in the water.

There was a deadline, (August 1948) but not a withdrawal of the offer.

The rejection by the Arabs, represented an unwillingness to participate in the implementation process.

The Arab Parties (the Higher Committee and League) use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- to establish doubt on matters of authority and intention.

The Arab Parties use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- when it is to their advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Good post, thanks.

MJB12741, et al,

There is a mixing of apples and oranges here.

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians did not, thus making it non binding. Bye bye any hopes for a Palestinian State. And lucky for Israel, Palestinian mentality still prevails to this day.

(COMMENT)

The acceptance of the resolution, by either side, has nothing to do with whether the resolution is "binding."

The resolution was non binding until it was approved by both sides and implemented by the Security Council. Neither of those things happened.


Indeed, and until it was accepted by both parties, it was nothing more than an offer.

The resolution could be accepted by either party, but not imposed or forced on either party.

This is the key element. Britain refused to implement the plan without the Palestinian's approval. The Security Council was not prepared to implement the resolution by force. The US withdrew its support and was making an alternate proposal. Resolution 181 was dead in the water.

There was a deadline, (August 1948) but not a withdrawal of the offer.

The rejection by the Arabs, represented an unwillingness to participate in the implementation process.

The Arab Parties (the Higher Committee and League) use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- to establish doubt on matters of authority and intention.

The Arab Parties use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- when it is to their advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians themselves used 181 as a basis to declare independence in 1988. So once again, you're lying.

 

[Kondor3]

...Resolution 181 was dead in the water.

Until the Jews of Old Palestine resurrected it, as a basis for creating the State of Israel.

Which the world recognized as a fait accompli some months (or, in some cases, years) later.

Which the Palestinians themselves resurrected, as the basis for their own declaration.

Thereby reinforcing and re-validating the Jews' original resurrection of 181.

That was damned nice of the Palestinians, to do that for the Israelis, wasn't it?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

What matter does it make that the Palestinians have an internal conflict in the recognition of the legitimacy of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) today?

There will be, for sometime into the future, those hardliners that will quibble over the facts of the matter. But today, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is tied up on issues far remote from the arrangements made and adopted a half century ago.

All that needs to be remembered about GA/RES/181(II) is that:

• It was passed on November 1947.
• The Israelis accepted, declared independence IAW the preparatory steps of the resolution in 1948.
• The Palestinians, the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, exercise their right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory in 1988.

Today, what is important --- is the attainment of a just and reasonable settlement of their international dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There are any number of ways by which a peaceful settlement can be achieved:

• negotiation,
• inquiry,
• mediation,
• conciliation,
• arbitration,
• judicial settlement,
• regional agencies or arrangements,
• --- or --- any combination.

What we exclude are measures that pursue "other than peaceful means" as an option of their choice.

Since the re-opening of hostilities by the Palestinians after the 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the amplification of the Jihadist policies since that time, the options for a peaceful solution have been held at length. It would appear that neither side is ready to enter talks and pursue in good faith --- negotiations for a treaty on a general and complete settlement of disputes with the other; by peaceful means in such a manner that regional peace, security and justice are objectively achieved.

We may argue ancient points and milestones that brought us to this point, but in the end, whether the Palestinian is able to achieve balance in its leadership and assume the role of peace maker is a question for the future. Today, they are still attempting to stand alone and have a unity government; which has been a quarter-century struggle for political balance with them.

It is not reasonable to assume that any government can expect to see a "good faith effort" from a government which can not act as a unified body on domestic internal conflicts.

Further, as along as both major elements, currently attempting to take control of the State of Palestine, are anti-peace based products, it is not likely that a peaceful means in the resolution of disputes will be achieved.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Good post, thanks.

MJB12741, et al,

There is a mixing of apples and oranges here.

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians did not, thus making it non binding. Bye bye any hopes for a Palestinian State. And lucky for Israel, Palestinian mentality still prevails to this day.

(COMMENT)

The acceptance of the resolution, by either side, has nothing to do with whether the resolution is "binding."

The resolution was non binding until it was approved by both sides and implemented by the Security Council. Neither of those things happened.


Indeed, and until it was accepted by both parties, it was nothing more than an offer.

The resolution could be accepted by either party, but not imposed or forced on either party.

This is the key element. Britain refused to implement the plan without the Palestinian's approval. The Security Council was not prepared to implement the resolution by force. The US withdrew its support and was making an alternate proposal. Resolution 181 was dead in the water.

There was a deadline, (August 1948) but not a withdrawal of the offer.

The rejection by the Arabs, represented an unwillingness to participate in the implementation process.

The Arab Parties (the Higher Committee and League) use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- to establish doubt on matters of authority and intention.

The Arab Parties use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- when it is to their advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

No they are kept separate

Until the Palestinians declared their intentions of forming a nation and subverting Israel, by that they accepted UN 181 in August of 1948.

But they then capitulated and declared in August 1948, thereby agreeing with UN 181

So now it is time to put yourself in the spotlight and say once and for all that the Palestinians did indeed accept 181 when the declared their intentions, or that they refused to accept 181 and to this day do not have a valid legal state and the land is anyones who can take it and hold it.

 

[Phoenall]

Good post, thanks.

MJB12741, et al,

There is a mixing of apples and oranges here.


(COMMENT)

The acceptance of the resolution, by either side, has nothing to do with whether the resolution is "binding."

The resolution was non binding until it was approved by both sides and implemented by the Security Council. Neither of those things happened.


Indeed, and until it was accepted by both parties, it was nothing more than an offer.


This is the key element. Britain refused to implement the plan without the Palestinian's approval. The Security Council was not prepared to implement the resolution by force. The US withdrew its support and was making an alternate proposal. Resolution 181 was dead in the water.

There was a deadline, (August 1948) but not a withdrawal of the offer.

The rejection by the Arabs, represented an unwillingness to participate in the implementation process.

The Arab Parties (the Higher Committee and League) use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- to establish doubt on matters of authority and intention.

The Arab Parties use elements of the Covenant and the Charter --- along with the directive surrounding the Mandate Process and Trustee Program --- when it is to their advantage.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians themselves used 181 as a basis to declare independence in 1988. So once again, you're lying.

They did the same thing in August 1948 so this means 181 was implemented.

 

[MJB12741]

LMAO! Good one. Yeah right, let's have Turkish terrorists inspect the flotilla for weapons. Heh Heh!

1) No it is you that is wrong as islam was not invented until 627 C.E by one Mohamed an illiterate mentally defective camel herder.

2) That has been debunked because it is ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA written by an ISLAMONAZI who twisted the evidence. Most Christians in Palestine are migrants from Christian nations less that 1800 years ago. The true indigenous are the Jews who never left and lived in the area for 4,500 years, shown by a genetic marker known as the Cohen Gene that is not present in any arab muslims.

3) did you try and ignore the first clause, if so here it is for you

All States shall cooperate in the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances engaged in by ships on the high seas contrary to international conventions. Did you read that ALL STATES part.

Plus it does not say that other nations cant stop and search a vessel on the high seas does it. So because Turkey did not ask does not mean Israel cant stop a vessel suspected of gun running and drug smuggling.


You must try harder when it comes to International Law as you are a mere moron in these matters

You really like getting bitch-slapped, don't you, gumby?


Here's a few more international maritime laws proving you're full of shit!

Let's start with freedom to navigate...

Article87

Freedom of the high seas

1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

(a) freedom of navigation;

(b) freedom of overflight;

BTW, trying to say a vessel carrying humanitarian aid is drug smuggling, is like saying Mother Theresa was a whore!

You're pretty fucked in the head!

Back to the laws...


...this one proves Israel had no right to stop that ship.

Article89

Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

So no, dumbass, you cannot stop a ship in international waters.


This last law, is in response to your "...what if Israel suspects..." line,

Article92

Status of ships

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.

...which means, fuckhead, if there is any criminal activity on board a ship, it is up to the nation whose flag the ship is sailing under, to investigate and prosecute those involved.

I notice you don't provide links to back up your claims, you just shoot your fucking mouth off until the cows come home.

 

[MJB12741]

Had the Palestinians elected a leader dedicated to their case against Israel like MLK was for Black people against White discrimination against them, the Palestinians would have earned world support. But lucky for Israel, Palestinians are Palestinians, & they always will be.

 

[Vigilante]

Pass this around to all your Jewish friends! What will happen to Israel with a President Hillary!

 

[MJB12741]

Who can ever forget that Palestinians & their supporters even praised that mentally ill American traitor Rochelle or Raquel or whatever who traveled to the Middle East in a war zone to condemn our American president, burn a mock American flag, join in with Palestinian terrorists chanting death to America & then march in front of moving bulldozer.

 

[MJB12741]

What does documented truth matter to Tinmore? He has a Palestinian mentality.

See you are attempting to remove the Jews rights to self determination by telling lies. The land was transferred to the Jews under 181 as soon as they deposited their declaration with the UN. You can call up as many obscure ISLAMONAZI links as you like the UN and ICJ supersedes them all.

The Resolution as a legal basis for Palestinian statehood[edit]

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.[107] A number of scholars have written in support of this view.[108][109][110]

A General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14 (2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Judge Abdul Koroma explained the majority opinion: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."[111] In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all


United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know how many times Rocco and I have shown Tinmore that both Israel and the Palestinians used 181 for their declaration of independence??
Yet he keeps denying it.

Now he cant as the link shows the International court of Justice had ruled that 181 was valid and legal

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]