Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Sixties Fan]

Over the past few years, both the PA and Hamas have been claiming that the terror attacks they celebrate have only targeted soldiers or "settlers."

But both this article and the similar biography of him in the Fatah Facebook page explicitly say that he was involved in the Munich Olympics massacre. It doesn't mention athletes but does say that the "operation" was "famous."

As the PA pivots towards the EU to impose a solution on Israel, as the Arab world and the US are finally treating the PA and the PLO it reports to as the terror group it is, one can only hope that the eyes of the Europeans will also finally open as to who they are dealing with.

(full article online)

Palestinian Authority celebrates architect of Munich massacre ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Observations and Questions

The fact that the UN Secretary-General and the ICC Prosecutor accepted the “State of Palestine” as party to the ICC statute enabled the Prosecutor to open a preliminary examination of the Palestinian complaints. However, there is a legal question as to whether acceptance of “Palestine” as a state, on the strength of a political, non-binding General Assembly resolution, duly follows the accepted criteria in international law for statehood and fulfills the definition of a state as required by the ICC statute.

International law does not recognize General Assembly resolutions as a source of legal authority for granting statehood. Following on from this, the Palestinians cannot give jurisdiction to the ICC over territory over which they do not exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction, and which is subject to an ongoing dispute and negotiation as to its final status.

In this context, one may ask how the ICC, as a juridical institution established on the basis of legal principles and norms, could, in light of the requirements of its statute, rely on a political, non-binding resolution of the General Assembly as a source of authority for accepting a non-state entity claiming to be a state?

The decision to accept “Palestine” as a party to the ICC statute, and to accept Palestinian complaints against Israel was rejected as illegal by the U.S. Administration, and the U.S. Congress adopted a resolution to the same effect on May 18, 2015.[9]

A further legal question is how is it possible to impart to the ICC legal jurisdiction over disputed territory, the sovereign status of which has yet to be agreed upon between the parties to the dispute?

In this context, the Palestinian leadership and Israel agreed in the 1993-5 Oslo Accords that the permanent status of the territories would be resolved by negotiation between them and not through unilateral action or imposition by international bodies. The Oslo Accords were witnessed by international leaders including the United States, Russia, the EU, Egypt, Jordan, and Norway, and the Accords were endorsed in UN resolutions.[10]

(full article online)

Palestinian Manipulation of the International Criminal Court

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan,

I want to sincerely apologize. I directly suggested that "YOU" were talking in circles, relative to Posting # 9349.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

You are talking in circles.

(COMMENT)

In my hast to compplete the '"comment," I addressed you instead of P F Tinmore. While I did copy P F Tinmore's Post #9340, for some reason (most probably carelessness and clumsiness on my part) I incorrectly addressed it to you. I only just now noticed it.

Again, my apology.

Very Sincerely,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan, et al

I'll help you read.

I did not say the Mandate had territory. But there was definite territory to which the Mandate Applied, and was under the jurisdiction established by the Mandate.

What I wrote is not flawed. You point is merely subterfuge to redirect the primary focus of the post.

the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine;

You have a clunker in all of your posts. The Mandate had no territory.

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.
Title. → 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

(REFERENCE)

• "Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom)" •
• "establishment of the British mandate over Trans-Jordan," • "proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate"

Sir John CHANCELLOR said that the settlement had been effected before his arrival in Palestine and he was therefore unable to say whether it had been inspired by Article 6. The regulations were, however, certainly in conformity with that article. Progress was being made with the transfer of certain Arab lands to the Jews.
​

• "in their capacity of Mandatory Powers over the countries formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire"
• "BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE" APG Cablegram •​

(COMMENT)

Just as a point of order, I very (very) often use my own words to paraphrase a fact in evidence. It saves me time. And while it is not impossible for me to be in error (and I will admit acknowledge so) of material facts for which I will apologize. The very first example (referenced supra) comes from Memorandum "A" - Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate." (25 Februarury 1948)

Each Mandate applied to a specific territory. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, the Allied Powers Powers granted the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. On completion of the survey that final boundaries for which the Mandate was applied were:

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are described as follows:--

• South.--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
  
  East.--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
  
  North.--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
  
  West.--The Mediterranean Sea.

I find your point to be frivolous and misleading; as if it had some significant bearing on the point of discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

I did not say the Mandate had territory. But there was definite territory to which the Mandate Applied, and was under the jurisdiction established by the Mandate.

The same applies to all the other new states. Why do you always bring up the Mandate for Palestine but not for the others? Are you trying to confuse people with irrelevance?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is somewhat difficult to discuss "annexation" during the period of the Mandate, given that none of the key authorities even discuss it; either in a negative sense or one of a positive sense.

And you have no problem with Lebanon, Syria or the Iraq Mandates.
There were 4 Mandates.

And none of them annexed any territory.

(REFERENCE)

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
SOURCE: Origin - Principles - Application, Geneva, April 1945

(COMMENT)

The issue of "Annexation is not discussd in connection with the Mandate System. Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because the concept of "Annexation" is a process of sovereign nations. Territories under Mandate are not sovereign. Conversely, once sovereign, limitations of the Mandate no longer are applicable.

To my knowledge, there has been no case of annexation during the period of a Mandate. And there has been no case of annexation involving any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians (not one).

By annexation, we mean:

Annexation, a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are really confusing me.

• IF I was involved in a Discussion Thread concerning "all the other new states," THEN I would have mentioned the appropriated material relevant to them.
• IF I was involved in a Discussion Thread in which I had to discussion Customary Law applications and needed an example, THEN I would have mentioned the appropriated material relevant to them.

I did not say the Mandate had territory. But there was definite territory to which the Mandate Applied, and was under the jurisdiction established by the Mandate.

The same applies to all the other new states. Why do you always bring up the Mandate for Palestine but not for the others? Are you trying to confuse people with irrelevance?

(COMMENT)

But, it was not necessary.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan,

I want to sincerely apologize. I directly suggested that "YOU" were talking in circles, relative to Posting # 9349.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

You are talking in circles.

(COMMENT)

In my hast to compplete the '"comment," I addressed you instead of P F Tinmore. While I did copy P F Tinmore's Post #9340, for some reason (most probably carelessness and clumsiness on my part) I incorrectly addressed it to you. I only just now noticed it.

Again, my apology.

Very Sincerely,
R

Thank you. I was confused by that as well.

When it comes to nationality, nationality rights, and international law, the people are married to the land. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. It is what I call the people of the place. States, countries, or governments are irrelevant. The people belong to that place.

If someone is Palestinian, his children and grandchildren are Palestinians. Nationality is not lost in future generations. They still have rights to that place.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan,

I want to sincerely apologize. I directly suggested that "YOU" were talking in circles, relative to Posting # 9349.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

You are talking in circles.

(COMMENT)

In my hast to compplete the '"comment," I addressed you instead of P F Tinmore. While I did copy P F Tinmore's Post #9340, for some reason (most probably carelessness and clumsiness on my part) I incorrectly addressed it to you. I only just now noticed it.

Again, my apology.

Very Sincerely,
R

Thank you Rocco, I do not think I took it as meaning that you were addressing me.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I wonder if Jenin residents’ passionate support for terrorism and hatred of Jews and Israel has anything to do with the anti-Jewish textbooks that are used in PA schools, or the non-stop anti-Jewish incitement in the PA-controlled media and mosques.

Or maybe that’s all just a coincidence. Maybe how Palestinians behave has no connection whatsoever to what they watch, hear and read from their teachers, imams and political leaders 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Fortunately, the Israeli forces eventually caught up to two of the terrorists. They killed one and captured the other. They were both identified as members of a local Hamas cell.

Wait, that can’t be! The Palestinian leadership promised, in the Oslo Accords, to disband all terrorist groups, seize their weapons and outlaw them. In other words, to put them out of business. How can it be that, 23 years after the PA took over, Hamas still has active terrorist cells in the city?

Surely the PA has the means to do the job. After all, the PA has one of the largest per-capita security forces in the world. Yet the PA never outlawed Hamas. It never arrested its members or seized its weapons. The PA treats Hamas like brothers and allows them to operate freely in Jenin, and everywhere else.

But don’t take my word for it. Look at The New York Times. Every once in a while, the truth about the PA and the terrorists manages to slip into one of its articles. On March 23, 2014, The Times reported that Israeli troops were forced to enter the Jenin refugee camp in pursuit of terrorists because although Jenin is under the “full control” of the PA, “the Palestinian [security forces] did not generally operate in refugee camps.”

Let me repeat what The Times said: The PA’s security forces do not operate in refugee camps. It doesn’t matter what the Oslo Accords say about the PA’s obligation to fight terrorists. It doesn’t matter how many Israelis the terrorists murder. The PA is not going to shut them down. Never has, never will.

(full article online)

How one raid tells all you need to know about Israel’s predicament

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Knesset Speaker asked Mogherini to respond to the two-hour anti-Semitic rant Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas gave last week.

"Abbas said that Israel is a colonial project and I would expect a strong reaction from the EU," Edelstein said.

He warned Mogherini not to be taken in by Abbas' pledges in the international arena to pursue peace, as the Palestinian Authority chairman says exactly the opposite when addressing his own people.

"We must pay attention to Abbas' 'doublespeak.' as he speaks one way in English and another in Arabic."

Addressing the opening of a two-day meeting of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Central Council in Ramallah on Janurary 14,Abbas excoriated both President Donald Trump over his historic December 6th recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the State of Israel and Zionism.

Abbas stated in his speech that Zionism was a European colonial project dating back to the time of Oliver Cromwell and had nothing to do with Judaism, that Zionists cooperated with the Nazis, and uttered an Arabic imprecation hoping that US President Donald Trump's "house" is "destroyed."

(full article online)

'Abbas says one thing in English, another in Arabic

 

[Sixties Fan]

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA maintains the refugee definition, even for those living in refugee camps within the Palestinian Authority.

UNRWA has 4X more staff member than UNHCR, while UNRWA deals 6X fewer refugees.

UNRWA spends twice as much per refugee each year than UNHCR does – and has never resettled a single refugee.

Conclusion? Shut down UNRWA and transfer responsibility for resettling UNRWA’s refugees to the UNHCR.


(full article online)

UNRWA vs. UNHCR – The Numbers Will Shock You | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | Jewish Press Staff | 7 Shevat 5778 – January 23, 2018 | JewishPress.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA maintains the refugee definition, even for those living in refugee camps within the Palestinian Authority.

UNRWA has 4X more staff member than UNHCR, while UNRWA deals 6X fewer refugees.

UNRWA spends twice as much per refugee each year than UNHCR does – and has never resettled a single refugee.

Conclusion? Shut down UNRWA and transfer responsibility for resettling UNRWA’s refugees to the UNHCR.


(full article online)

UNRWA vs. UNHCR – The Numbers Will Shock You | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | Jewish Press Staff | 7 Shevat 5778 – January 23, 2018 | JewishPress.com

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency. They have no authority to work outside that box.

The UNCCP is charged with implementing durable solutions.

 

[theliq]

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA maintains the refugee definition, even for those living in refugee camps within the Palestinian Authority.

UNRWA has 4X more staff member than UNHCR, while UNRWA deals 6X fewer refugees.

UNRWA spends twice as much per refugee each year than UNHCR does – and has never resettled a single refugee.

Conclusion? Shut down UNRWA and transfer responsibility for resettling UNRWA’s refugees to the UNHCR.


(full article online)

UNRWA vs. UNHCR – The Numbers Will Shock You | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | Jewish Press Staff | 7 Shevat 5778 – January 23, 2018 | JewishPress.com

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency. They have no authority to work outside that box.

The UNCCP is charged with implementing durable solutions.

Then it is the responsibily for the UNCCP to expel all the Convert Synthetic Non Semitic Zionists to their REAL COUNTRY OF ORIGIN,this is the Real Final Solution on this dreadful Crime Against Humanity against the Palestinian People and its Zionist leaders sent to Den Haag,of which the Belgians already have an Arrest Warrant to serve on The Nit and Yarwho,the moment he steps on Belgian soil.but I note the Criminal Bastard refuses to go there..typical gutless Zionist

 

[Hollie]

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA maintains the refugee definition, even for those living in refugee camps within the Palestinian Authority.

UNRWA has 4X more staff member than UNHCR, while UNRWA deals 6X fewer refugees.

UNRWA spends twice as much per refugee each year than UNHCR does – and has never resettled a single refugee.

Conclusion? Shut down UNRWA and transfer responsibility for resettling UNRWA’s refugees to the UNHCR.


(full article online)

UNRWA vs. UNHCR – The Numbers Will Shock You | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | Jewish Press Staff | 7 Shevat 5778 – January 23, 2018 | JewishPress.com

UNRWA does not try or want to try to resettle the refugees, nor help the refugees move forward with their lives in a new host country, where some are already 3rd and 4th generation UN welfare recipients.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency. They have no authority to work outside that box.

The UNCCP is charged with implementing durable solutions.

As usual, you sweepingly miss the point. UNRWA in particular, has been criticized for fraud and mismanagement. It has become a bloated and directionless black hole that aids and abets a welfare fraud pyramid scheme.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What you are citing is a kind of "Fee Simple Absolute" idea:

Fee simple. In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is a way that real estate may be owned in common law countries, and is the highest possible ownership interest that can be held in real property.
Fee simple - Wikipedia
Fee simple - Wikipedia
​

The "Fee Simple Absolute" that you describe is cmpletely separate and distinct from Westphalian Sovereignty • which is the "modern international system of states" that we see today (in most of the word).

Again, you are confusing estate property law ⇔ with ⇔ international governance law. I happen to own my house and property, "Fee Simple Absolute." I don't own the sovereignty and nor is my sovereignty tied to the land. IF President Trump sells Ohio to the Canadians, I will still own my home and prperty "Fee Simple Absolute;" but the land would then be under the under the sovereignty of the British Comonwealth State of Canada (a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II being the head of state).

Thank you. I was confused by that as well.

When it comes to nationality, nationality rights, and international law, the people are married to the land. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. It is what I call the people of the place. States, countries, or governments are irrelevant. The people belong to that place.

If someone is Palestinian, his children and grandchildren are Palestinians. Nationality is not lost in future generations. They still have rights to that place.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is a "right" which all people have (including the Arab Palestinian; BUT t is a "right" which places absolutely no obligation on any other. The Arab Palestinian "Right to Sovereignty" does not require or compel any other state, nation or culture to assist in the establishment of the Sovereignty. NOR does it give an authority to take or intrude on the Rights of others.

• The Responsibilities of Sovereignty •
In all three of the situations I have just outlined – stopping genocide, fighting terrorism, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction – the principle remains the same: With rights come obligations. Sovereignty is not absolute. It is conditional. When states violate minimum standards by committing, permitting, or threatening intolerable acts against their own people or other nations, then some of the privileges of sovereignty are forfeited. (Source: The US Department of State)​

In the post–World War II period the international community examined and reassessed several prinicples that were then made inviolate. One of those principles upheld in WWII was the integrity of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined. It was an outcome of the Axis Powers jumping the borders of other and assimilating them into their sphere of economic and political control. The concept had a worldwide impact; one of which was the view of Palestine. While the Arab Palestinians have the "Right of Self-Determination" and the "Right to Sovereignty," these Arab Palestinians have these rights s long as they do not place an obligation on another to either:

• take and action,
• refrain from and action,
• or forfeit something that is loss to them.

The third basic proposition about the legal context of self-determination is that it is not a “suicide pact” in that it does not oblige any state to subjugate its own self-interest. Law is basically an expression of self-interest and has evolved accordingly over time.
(SOURCE: SELF-DETERMINATION: Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession)

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks7.pdf
​

The application here is simple. While the State of Israel cannot be compelled to take some action, or refrain from such an action that, forfeit and advantage that would place the state, its citizens, or it survival in jeopardy or at risk ⇒ just to give something the Arab Palestinians what they think is theirs. The Arab Palestinians and the Arab League Associates, confronted the Israelis militarily several times to achieve in following their anti-Jewish policy; each time losing ⇒ unable to achieve what they denied themselves through a cooperative effort in peace. In that ⇒ there is no reason in the world why the State of Israel should forfeit any advantage, or return any control to any territory, that would amount to a reward for hostile activity on the part of the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

A pretty girl 17 years old did a terrible thing

And when a proud Israeli soldier

Again invaded her home

She gave him a slap.

She was born into it and in that slap

Were fifty years of occupation and humiliation.

And on the day that the story of the struggle will be told

You, Ahed Tamimi,

The redhead,

Like David who slapped Goliath,

You will be in the same ranks as

Joan of Arc, Chana Senesh and Anne Frank.”

Israeli poet compares Ahed Tamimi to Anne Frank

 

[Sixties Fan]

Palestinian Media Watch has reported that a host on official PA TV and the Palestinian Coordinator of the Project of the War on Drugs in Jerusalem accused Israel of being responsible for Palestinian drug problems:

(full article online)

Abbas: "Israel is exporting drugs to the Palestinians in frightening amounts" - PMW Bulletins

 

[Shusha]

If someone is Palestinian, his children and grandchildren are Palestinians. Nationality is not lost in future generations. They still have rights to that place.

This assertion puts you in a bit of a bind as a philosophical ideal.

Do you mean to say that my children are Irish, Scots and German nationals because their ancestors are from these territories? That seems, well, awkward, to say the least.

But if "nationality" is not lost to future generations and rights follow that generational line, then all Jews worldwide have rights to the place by virtue of their ancestral nationality. (This is exactly what the Balfour Declaration said). Therefore, all this talk about foreigners and colonizing is false.

 

[fanger]

A Dog can have puppies in a stable, that does not make them horses

By the way there is no Scots nationality, they are British

 

[Sixties Fan]

In addition to glorifying terrorism, Fatah and Hamas appear to agree on the need to “escalate” the violence against Israel in response to Trump’s announcement.

Hardly a day passes without a call by both Fatah and Hamas for another “day of rage” against Israel.

Abdel Jaber Fukaha, a senior Hamas official, recently called for escalating Palestinian and Arab protests against Trump’s announcement by staging violent demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fukaha also repeated calls by some Fatah leaders to the Arab countries to cut off their ties with the US and any country that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Fatah issued a similar call on January 19. In a statement published in Ramallah, Fatah called on Palestinians to “escalate the popular and comprehensive resistance” against Israel. Fatah also called on Palestinians to “turn the lives of Jewish settlers into hell.” This call is a clear message to Palestinians to launch more terror attacks like the one that resulted in the murder of Rabbi Shevach. This, in fact, is the real “license to kill” that Fatah has been talking about. It’s not Trump who gave Israel a “license to kill.” The real license is being issued here by Abbas’s Fatah.

(full article online)

Palestinian Factions Compete to Show Who Hates Israel and US More