# Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME



## Freeman (Sep 1, 2016)

Those are latest  stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2016)

Losing and dying, 2 things the Arabs are good at.

And whining.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 1, 2016)

Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories insist on committing acts of war aimed at Isreal. Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

On the other turban, islamics across the Middle East are continuing to find new and exciting ways to slaughter their co-religionists via beheading, burning, shooting, smooshing, bombing, stabbing, drowning, pushing off cliffs, etc.

Ain't life grand?


----------



## jillian (Sep 1, 2016)

Freeman said:


> Those are latest  stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war .....



all war is horrible. pal terrorists should stop lobbing missiles at Israel and then using their children as human shields in violation of the Geneva conventions.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Sep 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories insist on committing acts of war aimed at Isreal. Islamic terrorism carries consequences.
> 
> On the other turban, islamics across the Middle East are continuing to find new and exciting ways to slaughter their co-religionists via beheading, burning, shooting, smooshing, bombing, stabbing, drowning, pushing off cliffs, etc.
> 
> Ain't life grand?



Don't you know by now that Arabs killed by other Arabs don't count and evoke no sympathy?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Sep 1, 2016)

Freeman said:


> Those are latest  stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.



Those 1207 Israelis died in horrible ways.  Remember that lunatic, demon Arab teen who knocked on a stranger's door and then proceeded to stab a mother in front of her children?

And how about that Palestinian father who pushed his toddler son in front of an Israeli soldier so that his child could be killed?  Sick, sick society.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 1, 2016)

Freeman,  et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.



Freeman said:


> Those are latest  stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether you are the Police _(of any country)_ in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets _(Customary IHL Rule 21)_, there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level.   A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses. 

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters.  The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.  

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate _(GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity)_.  

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede.  The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish.   But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue. 

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous.  Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible.  In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable."   At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio.  The AH-64 Apache _(either IDF or American)_ has a phenomenal kill ratio.  What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target. 



 
*This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D*
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף​
This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous.  All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.


----------



## rylah (Sep 2, 2016)

*Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006*
(Figures as of March 15, 2016))


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman said:


> Those are latest  stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.










 And what does this show other than the arab muslims are there illegally living in Jewish owned homes stolen in 1949.

 That in war many people die and the losers always complain about the disparity in numbers.

 That Israel is working well within the international laws that allow such things to take place

 That the palestinians are habitual criminals as this is standard practice around the world for dealing with criminal's you want to arrest

 Your last is an outright LIE as the US pays the most money into the UNWRA coffers, and if they stopped paying hamas would no longer have ambulances to ferry weapons around gaza


----------



## Freeman (Sep 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Freeman,  et al,
> 
> These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.
> 
> ...



Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...



This has been addressed before. There is no international law that provides an allowance for acts of Islamic terrorism.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...









 Then the arab muslims should stop occupying Jewisj lands and go back where they belong.

 And International laws stand for everyone, whether occupied or not. They are there to protect not to force people into submission, and the sooner you illiterate muslim's start to understand this the sooner you will stop the violence and terrorism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...



There is no law against killing your terrorist buddies.
Even if they hide behind women and children.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman,  et al,

Again, you are wrong.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
*PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY*

*ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] *

Protected persons who commit an offence which is *solely intended to harm the Occupying Power*, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage *against the military installations of the Occupying Power* or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​
The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the _de jure_ application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law  they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV) 



Freeman said:


> Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​



*(REFERENCEs)*

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
*ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]* 

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties *and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited*.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​
*Palestinian Stated Positions*

•  Jihad is its path and death...
•  There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
•   It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​
*(COMMENT)*​
No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.  

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities _(Article 68 GCIV)_.  It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.  

Most Respectfully,
R


​


----------



## Freeman (Sep 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Freeman,  et al,
> 
> Again, you are wrong.
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> ...



Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...



Yes, Israelis get to defend themselves against your terrorist buddies.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman,  et al,

Now you are really confusing me.  I'm speaking directly to the application of the provisions as they apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

We were NOT talking about Syria; which is what is called a complex  conflict.  It is a different matter altogether.



Freeman said:


> Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.


*(COMMENT)*

In the case we are talking about Area "C" Settlements that are under the total civil and security control of the Israelis.  Pursuant to the OSLO II Accords _(Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)_, all Israeli settlements, including those in and around East Jerusalem, are located in Area C, and subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations (PSN).  This is an agreement inside the framework of International Law; but outside its jurisdiction.  The Arab Palestinians made an agreement.

*ARTICLE XII --- OSLO II*
Arrangements for Security and Public Order

5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.​CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS
*ARTICLE XVII ---  OSLO II*
Jurisdiction

2. Accordingly, the authority of the Council encompasses all matters that fall within its territorial, functional and personal jurisdiction, as follows:

a. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, *except for Area C* which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the *permanent status negotiations*, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.​
The Arab Palestinian have no responsibility for the administration OR protection of Area C.



Freeman said:


> The defence in occupied territories is an international right.


*(COMMENT)*

You need to review Part II Protocol I, 

"Part III and several chapters of Part IV (Articles 35-60) deal with the conduct of hostilities, i.e. questions which hitherto were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and by customary international law. Their reaffirmation and development is important in view of the age of the Hague Conventions and of the new States which had no part in their elaboration. Article 43 and 44 give a new definition of armed forces and combatants. Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. They contain a definition of military objectives and prohibitions of attack on civilian persons and objects. Further Articles (61-79) deal with the protection of civil defence organizations, relief actions and the treatment of persons in the power of a party to a conflict."

Article 65 [ Link ] -- Cessation of protection

1. The protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and ' matériel ' are entitled shall not cease unless they commit or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.​
Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation,  limited power and authority to restore and ensure public order and safety in the territory.  However, to a degree, some potential was withheld in order to prevent their use to inflict or commit offenses which which the Hostile Arab Palestinian continue to direct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israel). 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...









 Under which LAW, as the Geneva conventions which are international laws in this instance says otherwise. Because islamonazi illiterates say that their laws take precedence over  international laws does make it right.


 And you realise that it is te arab muslims occupying Jewish lands dont you, as shown by the land registry and the UN archives


----------



## Freeman (Sep 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Freeman said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!

Israeli Violations of International Law


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 2, 2016)

Freeman,  et al,

My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised _(which I copied in the response)_.



Freeman said:


> It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!
> Israeli Violations of International Law


*(SIDEBAR)*

These crafted listings are representative of the work done  by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war _(lands external to those given by the UN partition plan)_."

Of course:

•  The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."​Almost each allegation has a flaw that sounds true, but on closer examination, is not true.

I could go through this list, item by item, and point out the fallacies; but, that would lead to a very long Posting.

BTW:   Protocol I to the GCIV, did not go into effect until 1977.  Even if it had an applicability to the discussion, it is not applicable law because in 1967, no Palestinian Territory was Occupied by Israel.  The West Bank (including Jerusalem) was sovereign Jordanian territory.  Similarly, in 1967, the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.

•  A 1977 Law cannot be retroactively applied to a set of conditions and actions performed a decade earlier.
•  The State of Israel never occupied any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.

∆  In August 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (including Jerusalem) to the Israeli Occupation Force.
∆  In 1967, the Egyptian Military Governorship withdrew from the Gaza Strip.  The Israeli Occupation Force did not extend its Occupation Authority over territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.
∆  In 1979 and 1995 treaties were concluded between both Egypt and Jordan, which included the establishment of International Boundaries.
∆  I(n 1995, Oslo II Accords were concluded.  Areas A, B, and C, were established; with Settlements subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.​There was no territory taken by force from the Arab Palestinians.

*(COMMENT)*

At no time did the State of Israel independently initiate hostilities with the Arab Palestinians.  On the contrary, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Islamic Resistance Movement armed struggle and jihad against Israel.

I'm not exactly sure if you are attempting to insult me or not _("we note zionazis like you")_ or open some sort of an attack on my character, or motive, --- rather than attacking the argument directly.  In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the criteria is to be a "zionazi."


*Zionazi - Wiktionary*
Zionazi - Wiktionary
Jul 26, 2016 · Zionazi ‎(plural Zionazis) *(offensive, pejorative)* A Zionist with nazi-like tendencies. 1988, slogan spray-painted on the wall of the Jewish Student ...​
I'm not sure if this term _(words of description)_ changes it meaning over time.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 3, 2016)

Freeman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman said:
> ...











 And in every case your link provides there was no such international law to cover these acts. You are laughable in your futile attempts at using LIARS and EXTREMISTS to cover up islamonazi violence. terrorism and breaches of international law.

 ANOTHER ISLAMIC FAILURE WHO DOES NOT DO THE RESEARCH AND JUST POSTS THE FIRST THING THAT COMES UP


----------



## rylah (Sep 3, 2016)

rylah said:


> *Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006*
> (Figures as of March 15, 2016))


----------



## rylah (Sep 3, 2016)

_"The moment a Palestinian is convicted of an act of terror – “violent resistance” is the Palestinians’ preferred propaganda term – against Israel, whether against a soldier or civilian, that convicted terrorist is automatically entered into the PA ’s public payroll to receive a generous monthly salary (to be paid from the date of his or her arrest, not conviction). *Salaries range from around $400 a month to up to $3,400 a month *– up to 10 times the average pay earned by many working Palestinians, according to Black."




_

Crime pays ‑ for Palestinian terrorists


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Freeman,  et al,
> 
> Again, you are wrong.
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> ...


Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Freeman,  et al,
> 
> These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.
> 
> ...


Indeed, Israel needs to defend it colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Freeman,  et al,
> 
> My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised _(which I copied in the response)_.
> 
> ...


• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."​
That is true. Nor did the LoN or the Mandate as none had that authority.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Freeman,  et al,
> 
> My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised _(which I copied in the response)_.
> 
> ...


These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war​
Where is this incorrect?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

rylah said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > *Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006*
> > (Figures as of March 15, 2016))


Do you have a point here?


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 3, 2016)

PF Tinmore,  et al,

The dumbest thing I've ever heard.



P F Tinmore said:


> Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.​


*(COMMENT)*

Article 68 _(and indeed the entire body of the Hague and Geneva Conventions)_ places no limitations, requirements, or restrictions on the enforcement method or mechanism.  It is the companion to Law and Order in the name of the Occupation Power.

But again, your comment would not matter.  Any action taken by the Protected Persons in doing harm to the Occupation Power, is still in violation of international law; no matter the mechanism of enforcement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Israel has no "Colonial Project."  But even if it did, who has the jurisdiction to demand a justification for anything against a terrorist regime.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Israel needs to defend it colonial project.


*(COMMENT)*

At the current time, the UN Committee 24, having the mandate in monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960), does not recognize any condition in the Middle East relative to situations addressed by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples.

This is just wishful thinking; Hostile Arab Palestinians attempting to grasp at straws for some sort of justification related to their modus operandi; which include but are not limited to:

*International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages*
Provides that "any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostage within the meaning of this Convention"

*Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation*
Take actions it an offence for any person on board an aircraft in flight to "unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or any other form of intimidation, [to] seize or exercise control of that aircraft" or to attempt to do so.

*International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*
Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore et al,

Yes, that is correct.  We can agree on this; as far as it goes.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > •  The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

At the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquish full title and all rights to the "Allied Powers."

Israel declared independence under the right of self-determination in the territory for which it extends and practices sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> PF Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The dumbest thing I've ever heard.
> 
> ...


You need to read that in context.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians made "NO" effort to open a dialog pertaining to any claim they might have had then.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore et al,
> 
> Yes, that is correct.  We can agree on this; as far as it goes.
> 
> ...


Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise declared sovereignty over that land. It was not theirs to give away. Even you yourself said that the land was not up for grabs.

This is exactly what Israel had to do to claim land that nobody had the authority to give away.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.
> 
> ...


The armistice lanes were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

The UN had to specify that because it had no authority to change Palestine's political or territorial boundaries.

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.​
Not true. The people are the sovereigns. A government or a state are not requirements. The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is interesting...
> 
> ...


I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...




 That's only because you frequent nothing but antisemitic hate sites.

 You can't see anything when you aren't looking.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 3, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


OK then, links?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


Interesting that an invented people with an invented national identity could become citizens of a non-existent "state".


----------



## Shusha (Sep 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.



Only because you refuse to recognize that one of the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights to self-determination are the Jewish people.  The same mechanism which you keep insisting creates rights for the "Palestinians" ALSO creates rights for the Jewish people.  IF the Arab Muslim & Christian "Palestinians" have rights then the Jewish "Palestinians" ALSO have those same rights.  The only difference between the Arab/Christian "Palestinian" rights and the Jewish "Palestinian" rights is that the Jewish people have actually (despite the continued hostility against them!) done something with those rights to create a self-determinate, self-governing State.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...







 And the military are performing the actions of the police in this case, just as they have in many other occupied nations. It is of no matter that the IDF are the ones implementing the law enforcement, Israel could just as easily use ordinary police trained by the military to do the same job.


 You spout this nonsense without once producing any tangible evidence to support your claims


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...









 What colonial project, how about a link to support your LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...








 WRONG as you have been shown The LoN was the legal sovereign land owner after 1917 when the Ottoman empire handed over control and ownership of their former lands in an international treaty. The mandate was a legal instrument set up by the LoN to administer the lands until the natives could show the ability to stand alone. The mandatory was the national power that was put in charge of the land until such a time as the natives could function as a government.

 This has been explained to you and the evidence provided, just because you go all petulant does not mean you have not been given the evidence. 

IF AS YOU SAY THE LoN DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY THEN NO ISLAMONAZI NATION EXISTS IN THE M.E. OR ARABIAN PENINSULAR TODAY AS THEY WERE FORMED ON LANDS "GIVEN" BY THE LoN TO CREATE THEIR NATIONS FROM.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...








 BECAUSE THE ARAB MUSLIMS NEVER HELD TITLE TO THE LANDS COMING FROM OTHER ISLAMONAZI NATIONS. WHO GRANTED THEM THESE LANDS AFTER THE OTTOMANS GAVE THEM TO THE LoN IN 1917 ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...







Yes that profiling shows the vast majority of arab muslims killed in gaza are males between the ages of 18 and 48 and this is the same age range for members of the hamas terrorist groups.


 See how links can support you claims and have idiots asking stupid questions


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > PF Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 We have, it is just that we dont read it in the context you do that international law should never apply to the Jews


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore et al,
> ...










 Once again you are confused with mandate and mandatory. The LoN did not need to annexe the land as it was freely given under international law and international treaty thus changing the title under law. YOU ARE ARGUING A POINT THAT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE USED BY SOME ILLITERATE MUSLIM.
Israel had to do no such thing as the same international law that created modern day Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan also created the National home of the Jews on 22% of palestine. Not the 17% that you want to take back from them and give to terrorists. The land had been annexed under law in 1923 and so Israel just had to claim it as theirs.  The arab muslims violent responces are attempts at acquiring land by force and they should be repulsed by the west in the strongest possible manner


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...









Sop I am now officially claiming the west bank as my land because I have the same rights as 90% of the arab muslims doing the same thing. Because they arrived in 1948 illegally does not mean they can claim the land already granted to the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...









 Treaty of Sevres and treaty of Lausanne both say that the Jews acquire sovereingty of 22% of palestine. As does the Mandate of Palestine ( not to be confused with the mandatory)


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 Given thousands of times, so how about a swap you show us yours and we will show you ours


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen you express this parochial view of sovereignty before; but, never really considered it a main issue.  A sovereign state, as I was discussing, is associated with the Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) relinquishment of "renounces all rights and title" but maintained under "her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty."  Such "State Sovereignty is full control over its self-government, political affairs, existence, and territorial integrity.  It is complete in itself - separate and distinct from "individual sovereignty," dealing with emancipation or personal ownership --- or in the collective sense as you often elude to, self-determination (individual rights and collective rights).  


Today, norms of sovereignty are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, whose article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention.​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.   The armistice lanes were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> ...


*(REFERENCES)*


*State sovereignty legal definition of State sovereignty*
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty
Definition of State sovereignty in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is State sovereignty?

*The Issue of Sovereignty | Globalization101*
www.globalization101.org/the-issue-of-sovereignty
State sovereignty is the concept that states are in complete and exclusive control of all the people and property within their territory. State sovereignty also ...

*The Centre for Personal Sovereignty*
www.personalsovereignty.org/persov.html
What is Personal Sovereignty? Personal Sovereignty is a state of true personal freedom. The primary implication of the rise of Personal Sovereignty is the development ...

*Personal Sovereignty*
www.huna.org/html/perssov.html
PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY by Serge Kahili King copyright by Serge King 1996 Personal sovereigntyis an issue which affects each of us as individuals ...​
*(COMMENT)*

Yes of course there are two kinds of sovereignty:

State Sovereignty
Individual Sovereignty
And of course, normally the type of sovereignty you generally speak of when you discusses the Arab Palestinian People (especially prior to 1988) is sovereignty of the individual nature.  This is outlined in thumbnail form in A/RES/51/190 (1997) _(Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources)_.

When we speak in terms of "State Sovereignty" --- we general are applying the theory of the Westphalia Model

Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.

For a more in-depth understanding of "State Sovereignty", I recommend you browse the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:  *Sovereignty - The Rise of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice *_(First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Fri Mar 25, 2016)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What you consider legal is outside reality.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Israel, under the Declarative Theory on State Recognition, announced its intentions and it territorial boundaries.  Upon external interference by the Arab League, it successfully defended that territory (Under Chapter VII) and further gain control of additional territory within the Perimeter of the Armistice Lines.  While the Armistice Lines were not intended to be the actual boundaries --- the Israeli Treaties with Egypt and Jordan settled the International Boundary issues relevant to the territory covering the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

••  Article 3(1) The *international boundary between Jordan and Israel* is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.  Treaty with Jordan

••  Article II The *permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel* in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.  Treaty with Egypt​
*Position of the Government of Lebanon*

"In resolution 425 (1978), the Security Council called for the “strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”. It also called upon Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. The Security Council also decided “in light of the request of the Government of Lebanon to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon”, one of the tasks of which would be to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces. As mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), for the purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needed to “identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and other documentary material”. The United Nations would then identify “physically on the ground those portions of the line necessary or relevant to confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces”. The report of the Secretary-General also stated that the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the “Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949”. Subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon.  (Security Council S-2000/590 16 June 2000)

The Arab Palestinian, unlike the four adjacent Arab League Nations, never attempted to establish an agreement on the boundaries.  They remain an agenda item under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What you consider legal is outside reality.
> 
> ...


Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 So when did this nation of palestine borders get negotiated and who signed for palestine.  How about a link then tinny as you bragged you ALWAYS give links

 And not your usual link to the Mandate of Palestine borders


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, that actually is so ambiguous as to impart no information.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.


*(COMMENT)*

This is exactly why and how the Arab Palestinians promote the continuation of the conflict.

•  There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine.  This would encompass all of Israel.  
•  There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old 1988 State of Palestine boundaries are recognized delimit Arab Palestine.
•  There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the territories occupied in the 1967 war represent the delimitation.​As long as the representation (de jure) for the Arab Palestinians finds some logic to your position that the Palestinians "don't need to negotiate anything," the longer the status quo will remain in tact, or deteriorate further.

There are many that believe the situation, as it exists today, is not totally the fault of the Arab Palestinians.  But, as long as the Arab Palestinians wallow in cultural self-pity (as the virtual victims they portray), and "the virtual absence of border controls" --- the less likely it is that we will observe any significant improvement in the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people.

The Arab Palestinian approach focuses on expanding the conflict and using "armed struggle and jihad" ---  rather than focusing on economic growth and the pursuit of greater opportunities for all. Income growth is an important means to development, rather than an end in itself.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The Mandate was not a country. It had no land or borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that actually is so ambiguous as to impart no information.
> 
> ...


• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine. This would encompass all of Israel.​
Indeed, and nobody has ever proved otherwise.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Indeed, knowing your propensity to retreat to the pointless "prove it isn't" weasel, per your above, it has been proved otherwise. Prove it hasn't.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes he's quibbling with the words to avoid the point of discussion.

Of course we all know that by "Mandate" (in this sense) the meaning was:  "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  Palestine Order in Council



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate was not a country. It had no land or borders.


*(COMMENT)*

The territory, which was defined solely by the Allied Powers>  Having said that, did you answer the question?

Most Respectfully
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


 




The LoN acted as the sovereign ruler of all the former Ottoman lands and delineated the borders. If as you claim the mandate was not a nation then palestine could not have been invented and given borders because the borders you use happen to be those of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE

 Unless you want to prove me wrong with links to your evidence ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 Apart from everyone on here that shows they clearly state they are the borders of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE hereinafter to be called palestine.

 Produce your link and I will highlight this part for you


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes he's quibbling with the words to avoid the point of discussion.
> 
> ...


The Mandate was appointed to Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


I have proven you wrong many times but you keep marching on with Israel's lies like a good little boy.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 WRONG AGAIN you are deliberately confusing the MANDATE with the MANDATORY.

 Go and educate yourself as to the difference


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Only in your personal fantasy world, in the real one you could not even prove yourself wrong and you have tried vewry hard to do so.


 Now about these links to your evidence ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes he's quibbling with the words to avoid the point of discussion.
> 
> ...


I did.

The Mandate was not a country. It had no land or borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


No link?

Of course not.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 No you ducked and deflected because you know you are WRONG

 Then palestine cant exist as it was created out of the LoN MANDATE


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Thats right you are for ever more to be known as no link tinman. Your own posts prove this if you look as you dont even know what the MANDATE was.

 The Mandate is the multilateral binding agreement which laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in the geographical area called Palestine, the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. A legal and binding undertaking. 
 The mandatory was the elected nation that acted as the government of the MANDATE until such time as the inhabitants could show they were capable of ruling themselves and able to stand on their own


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Can you prove that point?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 The LoN MANDATE OF PALESTINE  was a country in INTERNATIONAL LAW otherwise no nation in the former Ottoman Empire could exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Are you still blabbering on with nothing to prove your point?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Your criteria used against you as without the MANDATE the LoN is still the sovereign ruler of the Ottoman Empire ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Where do you get this shit?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Proven many times but you will never accept any proof that destroys your POV.


 Why dont you define what you see as the Mandate of Palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 From reading all about International law and how it applies to Israel. The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both state that the LoN were the new soveriegn owners of the former Ottoman Empire with the power to dispose of the lands as they saw fit.  Look up the relevant treaties and who and what they apply to


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The mandate was a temporarily appointed administration to Palestine.

Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could be appointed to it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Passage and link?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Your mythical 'Pal'istan" existed as a reference to a geographical area. You seem to have some romantic notion toward 'Pal'istan" as others have toward Atlantis. Assigning myth and legend as you do represents a break from reality.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, the word Palestine --- as it pertains to a non-legal entity, was used.  But to describe what?  There was no such political subdivision called Palestine in the 19th Century, during the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.

Again, you are intentionally quibbling over something, I think regional geography name.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This is not actually true.



			
				Near & Middle East Titles:   Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947  HISTORICAL OVERVIEW said:
			
		

> In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
> 
> *The eastern frontier with Transjordan*
> 
> ...



In a sense this is misleading.  The Allied Powers, for the first time in over a century, were going to establish a legal entity called Palestine.  In 1922, the actual parameter for this legal entity was not yet defined.  There is a bit of legal fiction that took place that everyone takes for granted.

In 1920 the Allied Powers began rolling the ball on operations.  At that time, it was not foreseen that the Treaty of Sevres would not be ratified.  This activities were in place before the diplomatic paperwork was completed.  In the strict sense, the Mandate did not go into effect because the Treaty of Lausanne had not been officially concluded between the Allied Powers and Turkey. That did not happen until 29th September 1923,  and the war between Turkey and the Allies was officially ended.  It was then that the Council of the League officially put in place the Order in Council and was able officially assign the British Mandate over Palestine.  That is when the pieces fall together, including the acceptance of the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of December 1920.  At that point:

The August 1922 Palestine Order in Council provided that:

*Definition of boundaries, formation of districts*, etc.  Part II --- Executive Paragraph 11.

(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​
*So*, if the Mandate had not gone into effect, then there would have been no Boundary Commission and no Franco-British boundary and thus, not even a legal entity by the name of Palestine set by the Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## fanger (Sep 7, 2016)

Now lets see your Atlantis Pics? or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948, when the Illegal immigrants took over the area known as Palestine, and adopted declared Palestinian borders as it's own


----------



## fanger (Sep 7, 2016)

The possibility of a Jewish homeland in Palestine had been a goal of Zionist organizations since the late 19th century. The British Foreign Secretary stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.[7]

Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If, as you cling to Palestine never existed, where was this Zionist state to be established?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 7, 2016)

fanger said:


> ...or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948 ...


----------



## Shusha (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.



Palestine existed as a convenient geographical label.  But it had no legal status.  No independent powers.  No sovereignty.  And the Mandate existed -- as you continue to point out -- as a trust for the expression of self-determination for the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights there.  

And, of course, it had defined borders.  Those borders included the territory which is now has the legal status of an independent nation called Jordan.  How did Jordan become removed from the territory of Palestine and become not-Palestine?  By what legal mechanism did that occur?  And why would a similar legal mechanism not be effective in removing Israel from the geographical territory of Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 7, 2016)

fanger, et al,

Two points you failed to grasp



fanger said:


> If, as you cling to Palestine never existed, where was this Zionist state to be established?


*(COMMENT)*

We did not say that "Palestine," as a historical undefined regional name, did not exist.   This point is what it is.

The second point is the "Zionist State" is different from a "Jewish National Home;" or even a "Jewish State." 

*----------------------------------------------------*​
The claim is that in the four centuries (or longer), Palestine was not a legal entity or political sub-division.  Between 141-63BC -- there was a Jewish revolt.  The outcome was the establishment of an independent state (Judaea). Then when Pompey the Great conquered the region SPQR Rome and made it a province of the Roman Empire, it was under the puppet regimes of Jewish Kings. Rome ruled Palestine for about 700 years.



*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_during_the_Middle_Ages*​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, the word Palestine --- as it pertains to a non-legal entity, was used.  But to describe what?  There was no such political subdivision called Palestine in the 19th Century, during the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> ...


In the strict sense, the Mandate did not go into effect because the Treaty of Lausanne had not been officially concluded between the Allied Powers and Turkey. That did not happen until 29th September 1923, and the war between Turkey and the Allies was officially ended. It was then that the Council of the League officially put in place the Order in Council and was able officially assign the British Mandate over Palestine.​
Just like I said. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could be assigned to it. And when Britain left Palestine they said that Palestine would still be a legal entity. Then they said that it would be a non self governing territory.

*en·ti·ty *[éntətee]
(_plural_ *en·ti·ties*)
_n_
*1. * *object: *something that exists as or is perceived as a single separate object

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.
> ...


When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.

With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 7, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...


Doesn't matter...

The Jews have won...

You have lost...

70 years ago...

One of these days, you thick-headed Neanderthals will figure that out...

And then you'll pack up and leave, taking your families out of that shit-hole...

Like your grandfathers should have done 70 years ago...

What a waste of 70 years...

With the same outcome now, that you could have had back then...

Oh, and.... will the last Muslim-Arab to leave Gaza, please turn off the lights, and drop off the keys in Jerusalem? Thanks.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


"_Mr. Marshall has made his decision... now, let him enforce it_..."


----------



## Shusha (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.
> 
> With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.



Oh come on.  Thousands of people "got the boot" from Jordan.  Tens of thousands from Syria.  Tens of thousands from Lebanon.  Tens of thousands from Iraq.  

Are you trying to tell me that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were created illegally because of that?!  And that because they were created illegally -- they can not or do not exist?  And that international law somehow backs this up?  

Literally MILLIONS of people "got the boot" from dozens of countries following WWI and WWII -- are you trying to claim that none of these countries legally exist?  

Give your head a shake, man.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 7, 2016)

fanger said:


> Now lets see your Atlantis Pics? or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948, when the Illegal immigrants took over the area known as Palestine, and adopted declared Palestinian borders as it's own


Palestine never existed as an autonomous state.

It was merely a region that the Romans re-named, and held for some centuries, before the greaseballs from Arabia stole it, and which the Ottomans eventually stole from them.

The Jews are the oldest extant People with valid claims to the land in pre-Roman times...

The oldest heirs to the land; with a claim superior to that of the descendants of those who stole it...

The Jews wanted it...

The Jews fought for it...

The Jews kicked ass for it...

And most of the world (outside the domains of Islam, anyway) are content that this be so...

Witness the paralysis extant at the New York International Old Ladies Debating Society... a.k.a. the United Nations.

The Jews own it now... lock, stock and barrel.

Get used to it...

They're gonna have it for a very, very, _vvveerrrrrrrrryyy_ long time...

Enjoy...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


That is what BDS is for.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Don't be ridiculous!



P F Tinmore said:


> When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.
> With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.


*(REFERENCE)*

•  Posting #1215

*(COMMENT)*

What is the criteria for "creation" being "legal" vs "illegal."

There is NO prohibition against the removal of "threatening populations" from the rear area for security purpose (military imperatives).  The Arab Palestinians triggered Civil War, which in turn, was the prelude to the 1948-1949 War of Independence.  The Fourth Geneva Convention was not applicable in 1947-1948 Phase.  But even if it was, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
*DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS*
*ARTICLE 49*
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area *if the security of the population or imperative military reasons* so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.​
I don't think it is necessary for me to reiterate everything in the "Referenced Posting."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Don't be ridiculous!
> 
> ...


Nevertheless, the Occupying Power , blah, blah, blah.​
Thank you. enough said.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 WRONG ONCE AGAIN YOU CONFUSE DELIBERATELY THE MANDATE WITH THE MANDATORY. IT WONT WORK ANYMORE AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THE DIFFERENCE MANY TIMES

 The mandate was a legal instrument set up to act as a nation, and the whole of the Ottoman empire was covered by a mandate from 1917 to the hand over of power. The mandatory, in this case Great Britain, was a temporary appointed administration for Iraq, trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. The rest of the M.E. was covered by France who were a temporary appointed administration as well. 

Not one of the nations covered by mandate existed until the mandate came into force, you cant find one with a working government prior to 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Does this mean that none of those nations is legal using your criteria  as they could not have a mandate appointed to them.

AS I KEEP TELLING YOU LOOK UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANDATE AND MANDATORY AS APPLIED TO PALESTINE, AND THEN LOOK UP WHAT WAS PALESTINE IN THE MANDATE.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 CAN YOU DISPROVE IT ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









Given hundreds of times, why do you keep asking for the same links ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...











In other words   "WHY DO YOU ALWAYS SHOW ME UP AS A COMPLETE MORON AND PROVE ME WRONG , I WILL HAVE TO POST SOME MORE OFF TOPIC VIDEO'S AND ASK FOR LINKS THAT I HAVE ASKED FOR 100 TIMES ALREADY"


----------



## fanger (Sep 8, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> The Jews have won...
> 
> You have lost...
> 
> ...


You can tell that to the Native Americans too


----------



## theliq (Sep 8, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Now lets see your Atlantis Pics? or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948, when the Illegal immigrants took over the area known as Palestine, and adopted declared Palestinian borders as it's own
> ...


Don't count your chickens.....anyway your assumption is wrong ..... The majority of Jews in Israel are just CONVERTS,in NO WAY can you claim that they have any claim to Palestine....these wretches like you are Eastern European,Turkic etc.,THE ONLY SEMITIC JEWS ARE THE SHEPARDIC JEWS AND THE SEMITIC PALESTINIANS,....YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN PALESTINE,SHEPARDIC YES .......YOU BLOWIN'S NO WAY.....the Zionists promoted the lowly converts to come to Israel...You are not Jewish,have no direct line to Abraham ....the Palestinians do,the Shepardic Jews DO..............Time for the CONVERTS..NOT REAL JEWS to go back to WHERE THEY ORIGINATED FROM...being as you are keen on peoples going back to their Origins........but you got it all wrong.....off you go,You are not wanted anymore because you are ILLEGALS,you are not Original just late 19th Century Synthetic Jews..........which means nothing.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

fanger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > The Jews have won...
> ...








 How about the native Jews of Mecca and Medina, the native Druze from all over the M.E. The native population of tyhe Philippines, the native Kurds of Iran and Turkey


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

theliq said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...











 And you will now produce the unbiased evidence of this for the board to look at. 

 OR WILL YOU DO A TINNY AND DUCK THE REALITY AS YOU DEFLECT AWAY FROM YOUR OWN LIES


----------



## theliq (Sep 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


HO,HO.Ho..........OUT OF THE MOUTH OF A SYNTHETIC JEW,WANDER OFF NOW PHEO.........EVERY ONE KNOWS I'M RIGHT AND UNBIASED......GO AWAY USERPER..........YOU DON'T BELONG AMONGST THE SEMITES


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 8, 2016)

fanger said:


> ...You can tell that to the Native Americans too


Nature gave Native Americans a second chance.

Nature gave _them_ the good sense to make peace in the face of superior firepower and develop mutually agreed-upon sanctuaries and to integrate them into the nation.

----------------------------------------

Nature has already *DE*-selected your Neanderthals in Gaza and the West Bank.

Nature gave _them_ the stupidity to continue war in the face of superior firepower and to use their sanctuaries as war-ops bases and to stand aloof from the nation.

----------------------------------------

That, my little Palestinian wall-flower, was the gift of an unintended and devastating comparison, a gift from you to me.

Thank you.

Enjoy the macro-analysis.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 8, 2016)

theliq said:


> ...Don't count your chickens...


Really? It's been 70 years. Just when do you expect this turning-of-the-tide to manifest? Wake us up when that happens.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 8, 2016)

fanger,  et al,

The judicial and monetary settlements made by the US Government based on the findings of law passed by the Congress and People of the US; including treaty and trust arrangements made.  There were treaties in place that were ignored.  The US Government owed oil, timber, grazing and other royalties on land owned by some 500,000 individual Indian beneficiaries.

Over the last half century, numerous claims pertaining to documented treaty, trust and holdings agreements have been adjudicated in favor of Alaska Native Claims and Native American Claims.

There were different types of claims payments; including by not limited to:

•  The $1.5B distribution (2010) in accounting and potential trust fund and asset mismanagement claims.
•  The $1.9B related to the land consolidation program for individual land interests on sales that have “fractionated,” or split among owners, over successive generations; including $2.9M fractional interests payments that owned ≈ 260,000 descendants.
• And the latest award (2012) pertaining to the settlement of the Cobell case, $3.4B in royalties that has accumulated since 1887 on oil, gas, grazing and timber transactions.​Since the early 1980s, the US Government has made more than dozen other settlements, each over a million dollars (usual several million) through the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).

None of these claims were related directly as either war reparations _(money or goods changing hands, but not to the annexation of land)_ and other compensations.


fanger said:


> You can tell that to the Native Americans too


*(COMMENT)*

Now these dealings, and subsequent settlements (for whatever reason) were not made under coercion and usually under judgements made through the federal courts.  Nearly all of them were either mismanagement of trust fund cases, reimbursement issues and treaty considerations.  These were all handled through peaceful means.

Cases involving both Native Americans and Alaskan Natives are totally different from anything the Arab Palestinians can claim.  The first of these differences is that there is no current conflict between the United States and either the Native Americans and Alaskan Natives.  There are Peace Treaties still enforced for every tribe.  The Arab Palestinians have never attempted to (in good faith) arrange a settlement by Peace Treaty; but rather --- opting for war and conflict in every case.

In another thirty years, there will not be any actual Arab Palestinians that were alleged claimants of the 1948 displacement _(actually born in the area under dispute who could claim displacement)_.  In 2015, there were on 3.85% of the West Bank Population over the age of 65; the 1948 War of Independence was ≈ 68 years ago.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> fanger,  et al,
> 
> The judicial and monetary settlements made by the US Government based on the findings of law passed by the Congress and People of the US; including treaty and trust arrangements made.  There were treaties in place that were ignored.  The US Government owed oil, timber, grazing and other royalties on land owned by some 500,000 individual Indian beneficiaries.
> 
> ...


There have never been real peace talks because Israel will not allow them.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fanger,  et al,
> ...


Your silly conspiracy theories aren't to be taken seriously.


----------



## dani67 (Sep 8, 2016)

israel  or palestine . they are brother . arab and jew are semitic. they are brother .they are cousin . its not our bussiness


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...There have never been real peace talks because Israel will not allow them.


Your so-called Palestinians missed a great many such opportunities, with Israel a willing partner, during the 1948-1967 time frame.

After their astounding defensive victory against their aggressive Muslim-Arab neighbors in 1967, however, the incentive for Israel to participate began to dwindle.

After their equally remarkable defensive victory against their aggressive Muslim-Arab neighbors in 1973, the incentive for Israel to participate was again greatly diminished.

The Idiot-Neanderthal Palestinians, by launching Intifada I, pretty much killed off any remaining incentive or desire on the part of Israel to come back to the table.

The Palestinians' even-more-stupid launching of Intifada II nailed shut the coffin of Palestinian peace-talks.

The Gazans' adoption of the terror organization Hamas lowered into the ground, the coffin of Palestinian peace-talks.

The Palestinian-initiated casus belli and the reluctant but vigorous Israeli prosecution of the 2014 Gaza War shoveled the earth over the coffin of Palestinian peace-talks.

The matter is now dead and buried, and your Idiot Neanderthal Palestinians have no one to blame for that but themselves.

You had your chances - plenty of them - and repeatedly; during that time, the Israelis could have fixed differences, and trust issues, but they could not fix "stupid".

You should have negotiated, vigorously and in good faith and with reasonableness, while you still could; a history lesson for the younglings amongst us.

That window of opportunity is now closed; you've lost, and you're not even in a position to talk "terms" any longer; Palestine is a walking corpse that hasn't laid down yet.

At this point, Israel is going to force your foolish Palestinians out, and annex what few postage stamp -sized scraps of land that your buddies still delude themselves are theirs.

It's over... time for your Failed State Denizens to wake up, smell the coffee, pack up, and get the hell outta Dodge... there's no point in hanging around that shrinking cesspool.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...There have never been real peace talks because Israel will not allow them.
> ...


Your so-called Palestinians missed a great many such opportunities, with Israel a willing partner, during the 1948-1967 time frame.​
Oh really. Examples?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...Oh really. Examples?


How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...










More spamming and trolling with your off topic rubbish rather that produce the evidence as asked for, is this because you dont have the evidence for your RACIST LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fanger,  et al,
> ...









 Here we go again with your islamonazi propaganda lies.   Israel asks for them all the time and it is the arab muslims that refuse. They just want a one sided ceasefire that they can cancel without warning, anything else would mean the disbanding of the P.A. and the election of negotiators. That is where the problems start as only a suicidal end of life person would put their names forward for such a role. So the ones they have constantly put pre-conditions on the talks knowing that these will make the talks grind to a halt.



 Unless you have a link saying otherwise from an unbiased source


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...









 They are not even that, they are just idiotic scenarios dreamed up by a psychopathic armchair warrior


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

dani67 said:


> israel  or palestine . they are brother . arab and jew are semitic. they are brother .they are cousin . its not our bussiness








 Not according to Genetics, that show a major difference in the make up


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 May15 1948 when the Jews issued their declaration.


 Have you read it yet ?   I have posted it over 100 times for you


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore 

I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal.  What?  Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...Oh really. Examples?
> ...


OK but what were some of the offers and why were they refused, i.e. what were the clunkers in those offers?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> OK but what were some of the offers and why were they refused, i.e. what were the clunkers in those offers?



Yeah, clunkers like Olmert's -- "Here's everything you asked for".


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > OK but what were some of the offers and why were they refused, i.e. what were the clunkers in those offers?
> ...


Oh really? Did the Palestinians get the Jordan Valley and open borders to Jordan?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Um.  Yes, actually.  They just also got a temporary Israeli presence there to monitor the crossings as an early warning system in order to prevent security problems like those which arose in Gaza after the disengagement.  

The fact that this was rejected indicates that one of the things Palestinians want in their "peace treaty" is the ability to attack and presumably try to destroy Israel.  In other words, they want the "peace treaty" to aide them in continuing the conflict.  

Which means that Israel, by putting in place concrete, practical solutions is the one MAKING peace.  And Palestinians, in trying to prevent security arrangements, are the ones who are AVOIDING peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal.  What?  Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?


The formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, more or less, followed international law.

Palestine was the aberration. International law was not a consideration.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore
> ...



Your claim was that the thing which made the formation of Israel illegal was that people "got the boot".  That was the source of the illegality.  Yet people "got the boot" in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq as well.  

So you need to either withdraw your statement as to the cause of the illegality or explain why people "getting the boot" in some places is illegal and not in others, using actual law.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Um. Yes, actually. They just also got a temporary Israeli presence there to monitor the crossings as an early warning system in order to prevent security problems like those which arose in Gaza after the disengagement.​
That looks more like a  no than a yes.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> That looks more like a  no than a yes.



That looks to me like a complete avoidance of the substance of the argument -- which is that Palestine will accept no peace treaty which does not give them everything they ask for including the right to continue the conflict through use of armed force.  

Who is avoiding peace, then?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


There is more than one issue about Israel. I just mentioned the most well known.

Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > That looks more like a  no than a yes.
> ...


The closing of the border with Jordan has been called the Gazafication of the West Bank. No doubt that is unacceptable.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.



Of course not.  I'm not saying that anything negates the rights of the Palestinians.  But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".  

You are doing it by claiming that Israel was illegally created.  You are claiming that the thing which was illegal was "giving people the boot".  Since people "got the boot" in other countries which were created during the same time frame, through the same existing international law, and through mostly the same legal instruments -- your claim of illegality extends to many other countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.  

So what should we do with all these illegal nations?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The closing of the border with Jordan has been called the Gazafication of the West Bank. No doubt that is unacceptable.



Ah, but you've turned a temporary early warning monitoring of the border into a border closure, as if those two were the same thing.  They are not.  (Though, Jordan, of course, would have every right to close its border with Palestine should it so choose.  There is no international legal requirement for open borders.) 

You are forced to falsely portray the peace offer in order to justify not accepting it.  

Again, who is the one rejecting peace?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The closing of the border with Jordan has been called the Gazafication of the West Bank. No doubt that is unacceptable.



In order for the West Bank to be "Gazified" (oooh, lovely word) several conditions would have to be satisfied on the West Bank side:  importation of weapons, attacks on Israel's territory and citizens, incitement, lack of resources committed to the well-being of West Bank citizens, lack of resources committed to economic growth.  I would agree all this is absolutely unacceptable, wouldn't you?

If those in the West Bank act no better with respect to creating peace than the Gazans do, they should expect the same result.  But it truly is up to them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The closing of the border with Jordan has been called the Gazafication of the West Bank. No doubt that is unacceptable.
> ...


There is already a closure of the West Bank. It is just not as severe as the one in Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.
> ...


But you are, in point of fact, negating the rights of Jewish "Palestinians".

Not so. I have upheld those rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.
> ...


So what should we do with all these illegal nations?​
Good question, but it is not the Palestinian's job to solve the problems of others. They have enough problems of their own.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever violations that may have occurred in other countries do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.
> ...


There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. I have upheld those rights.



Well, all but the rather important one about self-determination.  Which is an inherent, inalienable human right, remember?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question, but it is not the Palestinian's job to solve the problems of others. They have enough problems of their own.



True.  But it is your job.  You, having made this moral and legal determination that we have a whole pile of illegal countries in the ME and elsewhere in the world, are obligated to apply that determination universally, else expose yourself as a hypocrite.  So, should we expand BDS to encompass ALL the illegal countries which arose out of the Mandate period post WWI?  And elsewhere?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.



Well, then, feel free to elaborate, as you failed to do in your original post.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Good question, but it is not the Palestinian's job to solve the problems of others. They have enough problems of their own.
> ...


BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?



Not the morally correct question.  (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.)  The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".  


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.
> ...


Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.

Israel never had a defined territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?
> ...


Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


That's the same pointless drivel that has been addressed on multiple occasions. 

How many more times will you post the same irrelevancy?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I am just referring to the legitimate Palestinians citizens.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well there are answers to all of this issues.



P F Tinmore said:


> Well, just a few off the top of my head.
> 
> The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.
> Israel never had a defined territory.


*(ANSWER)*

Independence was through the declarative theory of sovereignty.  The original delcaration was based on the UN Recommendation which Israel followed.  But it was short lived, because of the external interference and act of aggression on the part of the entire Arab League (5 National Armies), when the smoke cleared and the Armistice Lines where drawn, the State of Israel established sovereignty over the additional territory. Israel has been enforcing that very same border as (defined) sovereign territory.




P F Tinmore said:


> According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.


*(ANSWER)*

The will of the Jewish People, through the voice of the Jewish Aagency, established the Provisional Government and successfully defended it against the Arab League (more than once).




P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.


*(ANSWER)*

The Jewish State of Israel established the nation under the rule of law, in the shadow of a Jewish-Arab Civil War, and then against Hostile Arab Palestinians.  There was no refugee movements after the succession of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Lines.   



P F Tinmore said:


> According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.
> 
> They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.


*(ANSWER)*

General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is a "recommendation" that was attempted to be implemented but was interfered with by the Arab League.  Adverse actions by the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Hostile Arab Palestinians, have consequence.  The is especially true when the action involved the coordinated attack by the immediately surrounding Arab League Nations (and more).

You should also remember that the:

•  The Fourth Geneva Convention did not go into effect until October 1950, after the annexation of the West Bank by parties to the Arab League.

•  The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons did not go into effect until 1954.

•  The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not go into effect until after the 1948-49 War of Independence.​
But even if any were, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
*DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS*
*ARTICLE 49*

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area *if the security of the population or imperative military reasons* so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.​
Remember, the Arab Committee declared its intention and threat to open and continue a conflict with the Jewish People over the establishment of the Jewish State in the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee.  This threat was made before the War of Independence.  The movement of Arab Palestinians out from the rear area was a military imperative to remove a threat potential.

 The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm its position that the Arabs of Palestine would not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  Arab Palestinians made a solemn declaration that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man.  This is a threat.  It is a threat that has been backed-up by deeds.  The scope and nature of the threat has been demonstrated to the world.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't be fooled by this logic.



P F Tinmore said:


> All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.
> 
> I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.


*(COMMENT)*

Any one, any where has the right to self-determination.  But again, such decision have consequences.

Relative to our debate, it has no real effect.  Even the US Constitution has limits to self-determination including the overthrow of the government to form a new government.  Most countries have these very same laws, including limitations on conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state _(guilt attaches even though the crime was not actually committed)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well there are answers to all of this issues.
> 
> ...


None of that refutes my post.

Nice piece of verbosity though.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> *All *of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine.



You are the one who has trouble understanding this.  Note my emphasis.

The Jewish Palestinian citizens have the right to self-determination.  Just as the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian citizens do. (seperate from one another).

The only question is which territory should be included in each group's national homeland.  If THAT were the only source of the conflict, Team Israel and Team Palestine could have that solved in less than an hour.  Indeed, it has been solved dozens of times in dozens of attempts at peace negotiations for the past 100 years.  The only reason it doesn't become an actuality is because Team Palestine refuses to acknowledge the rights of Israel and the Jewish people. 

Come on, I dare you.  Let's start with the premise that each group has rights to part of the territory and see how long it takes us to divy it up.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore,

You asked a question; and I answered each point.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice piece of verbosity though.


*(COMMENT)*

It is precisely these points that make you points or claims irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You have made no case for squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon to be citizens of a nation that didn't exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> You asked a question; and I answered each point.
> 
> ...


My references are valid. Nothing you posted changes that.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...


What a shame you don't understand the absurdity of such groundless "...... because I say so", nonsense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The "Palestinians" _are_ groundless. Going on nearly 70 years now.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I feel compelled to answer this since Rocco's more than adequate and excellent response (as usual) seems to escape you. 

You claim three things here:

1.  States must have a defined territory.
2.  Sovereignty arises from the will of the people.  
3.  When one State succeeds another, all those normally residing in the territory become citizens of that State.  


1.  

A) When are States required to have a defined territory?  Are they required to have such a definition before they become States?  I think you will find this condition untenable in law, as many States come into being through conflict, and many States have outstanding border or territorial disputes, without negating their status as Nations.  (Canada and USA come to mind, as well as others).  Indeed, I think you will find that a defined territory is one of the last things to happen in the course of the creation of a State -- the result of peace treaties made between neighbors.  

B)  Any argument you could put forth which defines the boundaries of "Palestine" also defines the boundaries of "Israel".  You and I agree there is no treaty (yet) which separates one from the other (other than carving Jordan off).  Your argument that Israel can't exist because it has no boundaries applies equally to Palestine. Likewise, your argument that Palestine exists because it has boundaries applies equally to Israel.   

2.

If sovereignty arises from the will of the people, and if EACH people within a territory has the same (EQUAL) rights to inherent, inalienable human rights then the sovereignty of the territory -- by your definition -- belongs to BOTH the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians.  Sovereignty does not only apply to the majority people of a place.  Nor do rights to self-determination apply only to the majority peoples of a place.  

3.  

Is irrelevant unless you acknowledge that Israel succeeded the trust of the Mandate.  I'd like to see you concede that.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Each question and assertion you made was answered and addressed respectively.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I _(you or anyone)_ can reference the mass of the moon _(10^24 kg)_ and it be true.   That does not mean it is applicable or applied appropriately to the issue under discussion.  (See Posting #147)

BTW:  You say "valid" as if that has anything to do with the discussion.  Good structure and form doesn't have a relationship to the issues at hand.  _(A Matter of Reference:  Dr Condoleezza "Condi" Rice use to play that game.)_ 

*•   validity*: a property of arguments, _i.e_., that they have a good structure.
•   *soundness*: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, _i.e_., the argument is valid and all the statement are true.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq (Sep 8, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...Oh really. Examples?
> ...


If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table


----------



## theliq (Sep 8, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


You forgot as Usual the most Important Squatters,Gypos and Invaders.......THE SYNTHETIC JEWS.....Hollie you are a conniving LIAR

As for a Boycott,Here in Australia,they sell Palestinian Mud,Face Packs etc.........from and on Palestinian Land as a Product of Israel,when I questioned this to the very nice Jewish couple.....They admitted I was Right.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 8, 2016)

theliq said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Your opinion of me does not interest me in the slightest, Fatima...


----------



## theliq (Sep 8, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Hi Kondie,stop being so sensitive my friend........I was only teasing you,I like to throw in the odd Bomb occasionally,as you full well know....I just think you need it from time to time.........but Dog at the Table was pretty funny........but maybe on reflection not to you..If I have hurt your feelings then I apologise...You know I love you man.steve...mind you..... you give as good as you get, and what's all this Fatima business????now I'm some ISIS femme BOMBER...you naughty boy.LOL


----------



## Hossfly (Sep 8, 2016)

theliq said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Go comb your curls, Sister.


----------



## theliq (Sep 8, 2016)

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


I REFUSE TO BECOME YOUR BITCH Hoss...LOL


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> I notice you didn't respond to my post about the formation of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq being illegal.  What?  Hoping that if you ignore me, no one will notice your hypocrisy and your inconsistency in your application of international law?









 He wont because he knows that Israel was created under the same MANDATE and INTERNATIONAL LAWS and so has to be as valid and as legal as these other nations


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 There were none on the table, just the palestinian preconditions that Israel refused point blank. You have never negotiated have you, if you had you would know you come to the table with a blank piece of paper and make your submissions from that starting point.
 You offer A and I reply with B and we eventually meet in the middle and so we negotiate every point on the agenda until we reach a compromise acceptable to everyone.


 So what offers were made in your eyes, that were agreed and passed only to be kicked into touch by the arab muslims strictly sticking to the Khartoum resolutions


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...








 Is that because you are sold to another ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Did the Jordanians take part in the discusions then, as they are the only ones who could grant them those articles. It is not in Israel's power to negotiate Jordans borders or relinquishing of Jordans lands.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore
> ...








 The same International laws and International treaties applied so how was it different ?

 They were never nations in their own rights, apart from Lebanon, for 700 years prior to 1917 when the LoN handed them the right to form a government under its care and protection. If palestine was an aberration then Jordan cant exist either as both were covered by the self same international law and treaty The MANDATE OF PALESTINE read it and see.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 WRONG you really need to stop putting in words that are not there, it is a common islamonazi trait to enable them to lie


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 And it is covered even in modern up to date International laws as being allowed.

 But what about the islamonazi nations enactment of International laws valid until 2015 that allowed them to evict unwanted citizens without using due legal process. That is why over 1 million Jews were forcibly removed from islamonazi nations in 1949 and you have never complained about that have you. 
 ONCE AGAIN PROVING THAT YOU DONT WANT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO WORK IN THE JEWS FAVOUR.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Only by islamonazi's like yourself


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







And all legal and in accordance with International laws and the Geneva conventions


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 LIAR 


You have constantly denied them these rights every time you claim Israel is an illegal state. remember their RIGHTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO FORM A NATION IN PALESTINE JUST AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID WITH JORDAN. They also included the right to evict enemy nationals from their lands. 


SO JUST WHEN AND HOW HAVE YOU UPHELD THE JEWS RIGHTS TO THEIR HOMELAND GRANTED UNDER THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 No it wasnt, why do you LIE it was formed by a small minority of "palestinans" based on propaganda, lies and blood libels


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Does not apply as you have been shown, it only applies to the parties who originally signed up for it and covers the Americas.
 Yes it did and it is defined under international law.
 LINK ?
 LINK?
 Make your mind up time does it exist or was it scrapped. If it was scrapped then it cant apply, if it was exists it does not say this at all
 No they were evicted as enemy nationals covered by International laws of the time.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Just as arab muslim illegal immigrants, See hansard and Winston Churchill, which is 80% of the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians. The only migrants allowed to become palestinians were the Jews under international law


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Who were the inhabitants in 1917 and any Jews already there or who migrated up until 1948


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 9, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


In the absence of data on the inhabitants’ nationality at the time of the enactment of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, one might reach fairly accurate figures on Ottoman subjects by deducting the available number of foreigners from the overall population.

The total number of foreigners who registered as immigrants in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 79,368 persons, of all religions. Another number of foreign residents should be also subtracted from the general total of Palestine’s population mentioned above; that number is the 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in September 1922 for the purpose of voting in the legislative election. The remaining number of Palestine’s inhabitants constituted Ottoman subjects.

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238(79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).

Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%). On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925.

Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725– (37,997 +76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








Actually it destroys your claims completely because you rely on only one source, so when the evidence is produced showing that you are using false premise you cant stand being rebuked and your arguments proven false


----------



## theliq (Sep 9, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore
> ...


Considering the UN Security Council never validated this change Israel is UNLAWFUL


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 10, 2016)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...









 WHY they dont have that authority, and this would also make Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran UNLAWFUL as the UN never validated those nations either when they became independent after 1945. ( the UN was created before even one of these nations became independent if you bother to look )

Want to tell your islamonazi handlers that you have decided that the truth applies to everyone ?


----------



## theliq (Sep 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are right probably Pheo,but this is an Israel/Pali thread,with respect .....steve

And Pheo...cut  all this "Islamo"nonsense Ta


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


THE SAME INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS HOMELAND OF JORDAN​
Link with passage?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


There was no change in those other countries so there was validation required.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 10, 2016)

theliq, Phoenall, Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yah --- I've seen this response before.  



theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First-off, there is no such thing as a "legal 'vs' Illegal" establishment of sovereignty.  The people _(through their own self-determination)_ make an attempt.  It is either successful or unsuccessful.  Success is a matter of control, the ability to extend is sovereignty over a specific territory.

*NOTE:*  The resolution admits Israel in the UN and recalls the November 29, 1947 and December 11, 1948 resolutions.--- UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (Iii), Israel​*ARTICLE 6:  The Convention of the Rights and Duties of a State*
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. _Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable_.

*NOTE:*  This is very important.  Once recognition _(express or tacit)_ is extended, it cannot be taken back.​*ARTICLE 7  The Convention of the Rights and Duties of a State*
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​The Security Council does not need to validate anything _(not even my parking)_.  Just like in the case of "Jordan" *(just as an example)*, HM The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, _(who also was the Monarch of the Mandatory over the territories subject to the Mandate for Palestine)_ made the decision.  The UN Security Council gave the tacit approval _(understood or implied without being stated)_ for the full independence granted in the Treaty of Alliance between the UK and the Emir of Trans-Jordan:

ARTICLE 1(1) "His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof."

From the Official History: Page Making of Trans-Jordan:  "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the *Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*."​The UN Security Council has no special powers to grant sovereignty.  It is the concept of self-determination _(choosing their own destiny)_ and the ability to stand on their own that makes the difference --- making of a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 10, 2016)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...








 And this deals with the remit of the thread 

 I will when you stop all your anti semitic Jew hatred and wake up to the reality of Israel being created in 1923 under the same international laws that created every islamonazi nation in the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...










 Mandate of palestine for the 100th time. it still says the same thing as it did Wednesday, Monday and every time you asked for it over the last 5 years.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...









 Apart from the fact prior to the treaty of Lausanne they did not exist as countries with a valid government until the LoN created the various MANDATES in the M.E.   2 run by France, 2 run by Britain and 1 run by Russia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You could say it 100 times more and it will still not make it true.

"Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations." The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: *"the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of... peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

What the Court seemed to be doing, then, was to construct the concept of a "sacred trust," the origins of which were rooted in the Mandate system, as the common denominator of all situations where people are not self-governing, occupation included.

That construction is facilitated by the historical fact that Palestine was a Mandate territory, and that the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rested in the dissolution of the Mandate.

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, *sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 And again you rely on islamonazi propaganda and talking points as your only evidence, what you produce is not supported in any laws. All it does is bash the Jews and demonise Israel so you use it as if it is an internationally respected law.



 Still does not answer the question WHY  DO YOU DENY THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND BE HANDED TO THE ARAB MUSLIM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON A PLATE


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



_What the Court seemed to be doing, then, was to construct the concept of a "sacred trust," the origins of which were rooted in the Mandate system, as the common denominator of all situations where people are not self-governing, occupation included._

Indeed, scouring the web may eventually find an opinion that agrees with your own. 

It's just a shame for you that such conjecture as "What the Court seemed to be doing..."  does nothing to support your whining about the past and the success of the Jewish State as opposed to the failures of the Islamist mini-caliphates_. 

"What the Court seemed to be doing..."  _is simply conjecture after the fact and an attempt to retroactively apply opinions to events that conflict with your personal biases.


----------

