Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Sixties Fan]

'Peaceful' Palestinian protests


The Palestinians are busy planning mass processions toward Israel ahead of the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem in May, in an attempt to create a "third intifada" that copies the murderous First Intifada of 1987-1991, which they define as a success. The Second Intifada, of course, was defeated by the Israel Defense Forces with our resilient nation's backing.

Most Palestinians understand that these attempts will bring nothing but the loss of life.

This was also true of Sari Nusseibeh's plan. A partner to the 1973 Geneva Conference, he spearheaded the effort to form a human chain of protesters along the length of the 1967 borders. In early 2002, police found a screensaver on a computer belonging to this "man of peace" that showed a Palestinian human chain planned for June that year. It showed figures closing in on Israel from all sides, dividing the country in two, against the background of a bloody clock. Hand grenades were also shown being thrown at the "occupation." In the accompanying caption, Nusseibeh expressed confidence that Europe would support the Palestinian struggle.

This presentation is a reflection of the hateful mindset of the Palestinians.

Terrorist acts carried out by "victims" under the false pretenses of arguments about peace, sometimes with Israelis' assistance, and the exploitation of anti-Semitic hatred for their benefit: Experience shows us that in these cynical "non-violent demonstrations," people serve as pawns.

The Palestinians thank Allah that the Jews are their enemy. They interpret military ethics, the value attributed to life, the trepidation at war and sensitivity to international opinion as a weakness to be used as leverage for deception, blackmail and terrorism.


(full article online)

http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/peaceful-palestinian-protests/

 

[RoccoR]

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

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

I do not think that we should consider that: President Abbas changed his attitude towards the US. Not at all. These types of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been holding their deceptive stance for more than half a century. President Abbas is just being childish and throwing a hissy-fit (first coming into common usage in 1967 to describe the HoAP emotional outburst over the outcome of the Six-Day War).

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm and former editor in chief of Al Quds Al Arabi, has an editorial where he wonders whether Abbas is all there. The long headline is a synopsis:

Why did President Abbas depart from diplomatic norms and describe the American ambassador as "the son of a dog"? Is it reasonable to raise his anger against America and Hamas at the same time? What is the guilt of two million people in Gaza to pay the price of this anger? Has his health deteriorated?

Atwan, who says that he wishes Abbas had declared a new intifada in his speech instead, adds:

There is a secret that we do not know about the health and psychological state of President Abbas, and we do not rule out that the disease lies behind his emotions. He went through tests at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, specializing in incurable diseases, during his recent visit to America.

(full article online)

Arabs starting to question Abbas' sanity ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

(COMMENT)

Today's "HoAP Hissy Fit" is over President Trump's announced diplomatic and political position is that America "finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.” (109 STAT. 398 PUBLIC LAW 104–45—NOV. 8, 1995) This recognition implies sovereignty.

But the most civil tone of the past has always been a tool of deception for the Arab Palestinians to use as a mask. The Arab Palestinians (whatever the flavor you might choose) has often spoken with forked tongue making one position known to the general population - while - having expressed one position for domestic consumption --- and --- another position internationally.

The HoAP have a difficult time with right and wrong. The first diplomatic option considered by the HoAP is "conflict." They try to play dumb on matters of supporting terrorism, yet maintain and direct HoAP in matters of pursueing the alternative hostile asymmetric conflict.

Of all the characteristics exhibited through the dysfunctional splinter groups that collectively the HoAP, the most common flaw is that of the "Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)." Nowhere is it more exemplified than in the position that they are not "terrorist" → YET → will openly praise people like Dalal Mughrabi, who actually did kill unarmed women and children on masse. It is not like there is a dispute as to whether the terrorist acts were actually executed. The HoAP openly admit is and memorialize the terrorist as a "martyr." The DID comes into play when the HoAP attempt to justify their terrorist actions → efforts by "freedom fighters" attempting to free themselves by any means necessary. This DID also manifests itself as the leap into the role of the victim; when they nearly always provoke the confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

I do not think that we should consider that: President Abbas changed his attitude towards the US. Not at all. These types of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been holding their deceptive stance for more than half a century. President Abbas is just being childish and throwing a hissy-fit (first coming into common usage in 1967 to describe the HoAP emotional outburst over the outcome of the Six-Day War).

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm and former editor in chief of Al Quds Al Arabi, has an editorial where he wonders whether Abbas is all there. The long headline is a synopsis:

Why did President Abbas depart from diplomatic norms and describe the American ambassador as "the son of a dog"? Is it reasonable to raise his anger against America and Hamas at the same time? What is the guilt of two million people in Gaza to pay the price of this anger? Has his health deteriorated?

Atwan, who says that he wishes Abbas had declared a new intifada in his speech instead, adds:

There is a secret that we do not know about the health and psychological state of President Abbas, and we do not rule out that the disease lies behind his emotions. He went through tests at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, specializing in incurable diseases, during his recent visit to America.

(full article online)

Arabs starting to question Abbas' sanity ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

(COMMENT)

Today's "HoAP Hissy Fit" is over President Trump's announced diplomatic and political position is that America "finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.” (109 STAT. 398 PUBLIC LAW 104–45—NOV. 8, 1995) This recognition implies sovereignty.

But the most civil tone of the past has always been a tool of deception for the Arab Palestinians to use as a mask. The Arab Palestinians (whatever the flavor you might choose) has often spoken with forked tongue making one position known to the general population - while - having expressed one position for domestic consumption --- and --- another position internationally.

The HoAP have a difficult time with right and wrong. The first diplomatic option considered by the HoAP is "conflict." They try to play dumb on matters of supporting terrorism, yet maintain and direct HoAP in matters of pursueing the alternative hostile asymmetric conflict.

Of all the characteristics exhibited through the dysfunctional splinter groups that collectively the HoAP, the most common flaw is that of the "Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)." Nowhere is it more exemplified than in the position that they are not "terrorist" → YET → will openly praise people like Dalal Mughrabi, who actually did kill unarmed women and children on masse. It is not like there is a dispute as to whether the terrorist acts were actually executed. The HoAP openly admit is and memorialize the terrorist as a "martyr." The DID comes into play when the HoAP attempt to justify their terrorist actions → efforts by "freedom fighters" attempting to free themselves by any means necessary. This DID also manifests itself as the leap into the role of the victim; when they nearly always provoke the confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeese, another slime piece against the Palestinians.

What else you got?

 

[Sixties Fan]

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

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

I do not think that we should consider that: President Abbas changed his attitude towards the US. Not at all. These types of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been holding their deceptive stance for more than half a century. President Abbas is just being childish and throwing a hissy-fit (first coming into common usage in 1967 to describe the HoAP emotional outburst over the outcome of the Six-Day War).

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm and former editor in chief of Al Quds Al Arabi, has an editorial where he wonders whether Abbas is all there. The long headline is a synopsis:

Why did President Abbas depart from diplomatic norms and describe the American ambassador as "the son of a dog"? Is it reasonable to raise his anger against America and Hamas at the same time? What is the guilt of two million people in Gaza to pay the price of this anger? Has his health deteriorated?

Atwan, who says that he wishes Abbas had declared a new intifada in his speech instead, adds:

There is a secret that we do not know about the health and psychological state of President Abbas, and we do not rule out that the disease lies behind his emotions. He went through tests at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, specializing in incurable diseases, during his recent visit to America.

(full article online)

Arabs starting to question Abbas' sanity ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

(COMMENT)

Today's "HoAP Hissy Fit" is over President Trump's announced diplomatic and political position is that America "finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.” (109 STAT. 398 PUBLIC LAW 104–45—NOV. 8, 1995) This recognition implies sovereignty.

But the most civil tone of the past has always been a tool of deception for the Arab Palestinians to use as a mask. The Arab Palestinians (whatever the flavor you might choose) has often spoken with forked tongue making one position known to the general population - while - having expressed one position for domestic consumption --- and --- another position internationally.

The HoAP have a difficult time with right and wrong. The first diplomatic option considered by the HoAP is "conflict." They try to play dumb on matters of supporting terrorism, yet maintain and direct HoAP in matters of pursueing the alternative hostile asymmetric conflict.

Of all the characteristics exhibited through the dysfunctional splinter groups that collectively the HoAP, the most common flaw is that of the "Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)." Nowhere is it more exemplified than in the position that they are not "terrorist" → YET → will openly praise people like Dalal Mughrabi, who actually did kill unarmed women and children on masse. It is not like there is a dispute as to whether the terrorist acts were actually executed. The HoAP openly admit is and memorialize the terrorist as a "martyr." The DID comes into play when the HoAP attempt to justify their terrorist actions → efforts by "freedom fighters" attempting to free themselves by any means necessary. This DID also manifests itself as the leap into the role of the victim; when they nearly always provoke the confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeese, another slime piece against the Palestinians.

What else you got?

What do we have?
Your endless ignorance and lack of shame in changing history and the meaning of things, no matter what they are.

That is what we apparently have had for the past nine years.....and counting......

 

[Shusha]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

Your attempts at legal shenanigans are truly remarkable.

Recognition does not create a condition where a sovereign nation can not change. It only creates a condition where recognition of sovereignty, once granted, can not be "ungranted".

Thus the US, as an example, can recognize Czechoslovakia. It can not then turn around and unrecognize Czechoslovakia. But this does not create a condition where Czechoslovakia can not make changes to its own sovereignty. (That is what self-determination IS.) If Czechoslovakia divides into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, THEN the US has the option of recognizing, or not recognizing, either new nation or both.

You really do a disservice to the Arab Palestinians with your odd ideas.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

Your attempts at legal shenanigans are truly remarkable.

Recognition does not create a condition where a sovereign nation can not change. It only creates a condition where recognition of sovereignty, once granted, can not be "ungranted".

Thus the US, as an example, can recognize Czechoslovakia. It can not then turn around and unrecognize Czechoslovakia. But this does not create a condition where Czechoslovakia can not make changes to its own sovereignty. (That is what self-determination IS.) If Czechoslovakia divides into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, THEN the US has the option of recognizing, or not recognizing, either new nation or both.

You really do a disservice to the Arab Palestinians with your odd ideas.

All the attempts by foreigners to divide Palestine have failed. Only the Palestinians have the authority to divide Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

Your attempts at legal shenanigans are truly remarkable.

Recognition does not create a condition where a sovereign nation can not change. It only creates a condition where recognition of sovereignty, once granted, can not be "ungranted".

Thus the US, as an example, can recognize Czechoslovakia. It can not then turn around and unrecognize Czechoslovakia. But this does not create a condition where Czechoslovakia can not make changes to its own sovereignty. (That is what self-determination IS.) If Czechoslovakia divides into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, THEN the US has the option of recognizing, or not recognizing, either new nation or both.

You really do a disservice to the Arab Palestinians with your odd ideas.

All the attempts by foreigners to divide Palestine have failed. Only the Palestinians have the authority to divide Palestine.

Foreigners didn’t divide your mythical “Pal’Istan”. Arabs-Moslems have already divided the land area into two, separate mini-caliphates, both of which exist by the indulgence of a dedicated, UN sponsored welfare agency.

 

[Hollie]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

Oh, Jesse. Another of your attempts to re-write history.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

Oh, Jesse. Another of your attempts to re-write history.

What history am I trying to rewrite?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

Oh, Jesse. Another of your attempts to re-write history.

What history am I trying to rewrite?

The History you refuse to accept.
It is History. It cannot be changed.
You and others who do not like Jews being sovereign of their destiny on their ancient homeland, will never - ever be able to rewrite history, lie your way into Jews losing their own homeland.

Reject history and the right of the Jewish people as the rightful owners of their own ancient homeland all you like.

We know you are playing games.

Pin the donkey on fools who believe that Jews are not the indigenous people of the land they now are sovereign of, again.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You get this wrong, (almost) every single time. Saying such, and taking such liberties with the truth does not make it correct. Merely, it becomes a false mantra.

Once a country declares an explicit "recognition" on a matter of sovereignty ✪⇒ it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. This concept has been true since the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (last sentence in Article 6).

Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period.

What happened to that unconditional and irrevocable recognition?

(COMMENT)

Actually, IT WAS NOT recognized as a sovereign state or self-governing. My two favorite documents to demonstrate this, is → of course → A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948 → which is the legal meaning of the “Termination of the Mandate" AND the status of Palestine before the termination. When Married up to the → Memorandum of the Successor Government PAL/138 27 February 1948 → the projected status becomes clear:

• Prior to 15 May 1948, was not a sovereign state. Palestine was a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who was entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs. (NO self-government.)

• After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

■ After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

Oddly enough, even with the adoption of A/RES/67/19, there was still some question as to the meaning and practical usage of the name change. It is a very important document and raises some serious questions as to its practical meaning. BUT to the question at hand, it says:

​

√ Your statement "Palestine was recognized as a state, including by the US, all during the Mandate period." is entirely wrong. I encourage you to read UN Legal Affairs Memo Dec 2012...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

That has been the Arab Higher Council's mantra from day one.

All the attempts by foreigners to divide Palestine have failed. Only the Palestinians have the authority to divide Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The territory designated, by the Allied Powers, as "Palestine" → was not the Arab Palestinians to exercise any authority over to begin with.

Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​

The rights and title renounced by the Turkish Republic were placed in the hands of the respective Allied Power. It was not placed into the hands of any Arab Palestinians attempting to use violence against the Allied Powers.

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. (Representatives of the Arab Higher Committee A/AC.21/10 16 FEB 1948)​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

What makes you believe that the "parties concerned" are the foreigners with guns and not the legal citizens of that defined territory?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The rights and title renounced by the Turkish Republic were placed in the hands of the respective Allied Power.

Not true.

The Mandates had a non annexation policy. They never claimed title and rights to the territories. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the respective citizens of the territories.

 

[rylah]

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

What makes you believe that the "parties concerned" are the foreigners with guns and not the legal citizens of that defined territory?

Which is what both sides claim.
You're going in circles.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Not that I know anything, BUT the parties to the ✪⇒ TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923 are listed in the Treaty. The list of plenipotentiaries in this matter includes selected member of the Allied Powers on one side, and the Turkish Republic on the other.

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

What makes you believe that the "parties concerned" are the foreigners with guns and not the legal citizens of that defined territory?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons --- which I will try to discuss in thumbnail form.

The list of countries invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, did not include a plenipotentiary for the Arab Palestinians. Such was not created until the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974; wherein the "Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other.

PART I • INTRODUCTION → Article 2 • Use of terms → VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

(g) 'party' means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;​

That does not include a Palestinian entity of any nature. The Arab Palestinians were the inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory, prior to the establishment of the Civil Administration AND those inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied.

While it can be said that the Arab Palestinians had concerns, by 1922 the Mandatory had been entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine under Article 12 in the Mandate for Palestine. Only the accredited British plenipotentiary had the authority to represent the interests of the inhabitants of the territory subject to the Palestine Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only the accredited British plenipotentiary had the authority to represent the interests of the inhabitants of the territory

Of course representing the interests of the inhabitants is something that Britain failed (or refused) to do that created the problem we still see today.

 

[Hollie]

Only the accredited British plenipotentiary had the authority to represent the interests of the inhabitants of the territory

Of course representing the interests of the inhabitants is something that Britain failed (or refused) to do that created the problem we still see today.

The "aggrieved victim" complex you try to exploit is old, tired and played out. At some point, Arabs-Moslems will need to accept responsibility for their failures. There are many examples of societies which have taken control of their destinies, rejected wallowing in failure and incompetence and taken measures to improve their circumstances.

Not Arabs-Moslems, of course.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Only the accredited British plenipotentiary had the authority to represent the interests of the inhabitants of the territory

Of course representing the interests of the inhabitants is something that Britain failed (or refused) to do that created the problem we still see today.

Exactly, they refused to represent the interests of the Jewish indigenous people after the mandate started by :
1) giving away 78% of the Mandate to the Hashemite Arabs,

2) refusing to protect the Jewish indigenous people from the aggressive Arab invaders who wanted to keep control of the land as Muslims, after the Muslim Turks lost their Empire and the land after WWI.

The British wanted to keep the rest of the Mandate for themselves, instead of doing what they did with Iraq, help it become a sovereign, autonomous country (which happened in 1932 )

The British did not create the problem we have today, Al Husseini did with his refusal to allow the Jews to recreate their sovereign country ON their ancestral land, with all the riots against the Jews, plus all the attacks on the British as well which led the British to attempt to make the Arabs happy by denying the Jews their right to return to their ancestral land , as they had been doing for centuries.

The problem is very simple:
Muslims want to keep all the land they once conquered, regardless of the fact that they have lost a huge war, or what anyone else decides.

If the land remains in Muslim hands, they are ok with it, for sometime until they attempt to take it from the other tribe which now has it (the Saudi clan taking over Hashemite land in Mesopotamia).

It is a Muslim on Jews war.

The Jews accepted the partition of their own ancestral land, the Muslims wanted it all.

Muslim mentality.