Boycott Israel

[RoccoR]

Billo Really, et al,

I guess that nothing in your eyes we be justified.

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be wrong. Although that is the "Rule of Thumb."

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Understand that there are three instances in which "Eminent Domain" is valid.

1. When the action is processed in accordance with the civilian law in force.
2. In the case of imperative military necessity.
3. Deny terrorist safe havens.

• 
  Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
  Private property cannot be confiscated.
  
  The principal rule (#50) of respect for private property is explicitly set forth in some manuals which are applicable in non-international armed conflicts. This rule does not, however, establish a specific separate rule outside the prohibition of destruction or seizure except in case of imperative military necessity (see Rule 50) and the prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52). No rule could be identified for non-international armed conflicts which would prohibit, according to international law, the confiscation of private property, nor is there a rule of international law which allows such confiscation. It is expected, however, that this question would be regulated in national legislation.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism
We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:

1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
2. To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

This is an offshoot of the Law and Order clause.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, the civilian law mimicked Israeli Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

No it is not wrong. You cannot have a transfer of ownership in an area under occupation. Here's the Law of Occupation, which is the governing principle in the OPT. I've highlighted the ones that show you're off your rocker.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Let me say this again, you cannot take possession of any area under occupation. Period.

(COMMENT)

Rule 50. The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo Really, et al,

I guess that nothing in your eyes we be justified.

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be wrong. Although that is the "Rule of Thumb."

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Understand that there are three instances in which "Eminent Domain" is valid.

1. When the action is processed in accordance with the civilian law in force.
2. In the case of imperative military necessity.
3. Deny terrorist safe havens.

• 
  Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
  Private property cannot be confiscated.
  
  The principal rule (#50) of respect for private property is explicitly set forth in some manuals which are applicable in non-international armed conflicts. This rule does not, however, establish a specific separate rule outside the prohibition of destruction or seizure except in case of imperative military necessity (see Rule 50) and the prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52). No rule could be identified for non-international armed conflicts which would prohibit, according to international law, the confiscation of private property, nor is there a rule of international law which allows such confiscation. It is expected, however, that this question would be regulated in national legislation.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism
We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:

1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
2. To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

This is an offshoot of the Law and Order clause.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, the civilian law mimicked Israeli Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

No it is not wrong. You cannot have a transfer of ownership in an area under occupation. Here's the Law of Occupation, which is the governing principle in the OPT. I've highlighted the ones that show you're off your rocker.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Let me say this again, you cannot take possession of any area under occupation. Period.

(COMMENT)

Rule 50. The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel shovels that same line of crap on everything. It usually isn't true.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

And which state was the territory transferred to, details of the treaty giving the name of that state. No treaty naming Palestine as such a state is there, but there is a treaty naming the Jewish NATIONal home and trans Jordan.
Once again you use an islamonazi source that has been proven to LIE, manipulate and alter existing evidence to meet with his POV. He adds terms and names that are not in the original documents and passes them off as facts.

Read the link again and see this where he admits that Palestine is not mentioned


‘Palestine’ was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne, let alone ‘Palestinian nationality.’ However, there was no need to mention these terms because the Treaty provided generic provisions applicable to all territories detached from Turkey, including Palestine.


See how he manipulates the meaning to an outright LIE


Then he goes on to try and make it look like Palestine was mentioned by name when it wasn't

The Treaty of Lausanne regulated Palestinian nationality in a way similar to the one by which nationalities of other mandated territories in the Middle East were fixed. The Iraq Nationality Law defined Iraqi citizens as those Ottoman subjects who were habitually resident in Iraq on 6 August 1924. Likewise, the Trans-Jordan Nationality Law considered all Ottoman subjects habitually resident in Trans-Jordan on 6 August 1924 to be citizens. Inhabitants residing in Syria and Lebanon under the French on 30 August 1924 (the day on which France ratified the Treaty of Lausanne) were deemed as Syrian or Lebanese.

 

[Phoenall]

Billo Really, et al,

I guess that nothing in your eyes we be justified.

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be wrong. Although that is the "Rule of Thumb."

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Understand that there are three instances in which "Eminent Domain" is valid.

1. When the action is processed in accordance with the civilian law in force.
2. In the case of imperative military necessity.
3. Deny terrorist safe havens.

• 
  Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
  Private property cannot be confiscated.
  
  The principal rule (#50) of respect for private property is explicitly set forth in some manuals which are applicable in non-international armed conflicts. This rule does not, however, establish a specific separate rule outside the prohibition of destruction or seizure except in case of imperative military necessity (see Rule 50) and the prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52). No rule could be identified for non-international armed conflicts which would prohibit, according to international law, the confiscation of private property, nor is there a rule of international law which allows such confiscation. It is expected, however, that this question would be regulated in national legislation.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism
We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:

1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
2. To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

This is an offshoot of the Law and Order clause.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, the civilian law mimicked Israeli Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

No it is not wrong. You cannot have a transfer of ownership in an area under occupation. Here's the Law of Occupation, which is the governing principle in the OPT. I've highlighted the ones that show you're off your rocker.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Let me say this again, you cannot take possession of any area under occupation. Period.

(COMMENT)

Rule 50. The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel shovels that same line of crap on everything. It usually isn't true.

Says the man who believes the LIES of an inexpert islamonazi propagandist proven to destroy the truth in his acts of Jew hatred

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how it is explained to you, you still deny it.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

"Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel"
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Article 30, it says: "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory was transferred under Article 16: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title." The Mandatory was the Successor Government which the International Court of Justice recognized in several civil law case.

The Allied Powers to which Turkey renounces all rights and title to - assigned the areas surveyed under the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement; known as the Mandate of Palestine. And the citizenship issue was resoled by the Order in Council and the Citizenship Order.

The pro-Palestinian "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" is an excellent research paper. However it cherry picks only the concepts that give the Hostile Arab Palestinian the best advantage. It is an opinion.

At the end of the day, in the second decade of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers ruled the day, and their intent was much different then you agenda nearly a century later.

REMEMBER: In the Treaty of Lausanne, when the Ottoman/Turks renounced their rights and title to the Allied Powers, they also said something very powerful:

EXCERPT ARTICLE 16​

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

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, Billo_Really, et al,

It depends on which time frame you are talking about, and which attempt at self-determination you mention

So this means that Jordan and Egypt could not transfer the land to the Palestinians, and have to negotiate a deal with Israel

Or does this work differently for the Palestinians seeing as it disenfranchises the Jews ?

(COMMENT)

I could make a timeline wherein, the Arab-Palestinians attempted to exercise their right to self-determination. But the outcome was that the Arab Palestinians attempted to establish a permanent relationship with Jordan that failed after an unsuccessful Coup d'etat in Jordan and the development of terrorist safe havens in the West Bank and the emergence of Jihadism.

• Peace Treaty, Article 2, Israel-Egypt (1979) without detriment to any existing right or claim by Palestinians:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is 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.
​

• Peace Treaty, Article 3, Israel-Jordan (1994) without detriment to any existing right or claim by Palestinians:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
​

Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to, was a direct result of some action that either the Arab Palestinians did or did not do. Jordan and Egypt never transferred territory to the Arab-Palestinian. The Treaties are between the Israel and the two States of Egypt and Jordan. The treaties were negotiated in the absence of Arab-Palestinian participation because it was not a party to the original conflict and the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not really stand-alone countries exercising soveriegn control. At the time, the Arab-Palestinian were operating under the Khartoum Resolution.

The Khartoum Resolution, which was an extension of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee commitment, essentially drove the Arab-Palestinian into disenfranchisement in any Peace Negotiation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how it is explained to you, you still deny it.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

"Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel"
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Article 30, it says: "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory was transferred under Article 16: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title." The Mandatory was the Successor Government which the International Court of Justice recognized in several civil law case.

The Allied Powers to which Turkey renounces all rights and title to - assigned the areas surveyed under the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement; known as the Mandate of Palestine. And the citizenship issue was resoled by the Order in Council and the Citizenship Order.

The pro-Palestinian "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" is an excellent research paper. However it cherry picks only the concepts that give the Hostile Arab Palestinian the best advantage. It is an opinion.

At the end of the day, in the second decade of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers ruled the day, and their intent was much different then you agenda nearly a century later.

REMEMBER: In the Treaty of Lausanne, when the Ottoman/Turks renounced their rights and title to the Allied Powers, they also said something very powerful:

EXCERPT ARTICLE 16​

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

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.​

Same for all of the new states in the area.

Why the smoke?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, Billo_Really, et al,

It depends on which time frame you are talking about, and which attempt at self-determination you mention

So this means that Jordan and Egypt could not transfer the land to the Palestinians, and have to negotiate a deal with Israel

Or does this work differently for the Palestinians seeing as it disenfranchises the Jews ?

(COMMENT)

I could make a timeline wherein, the Arab-Palestinians attempted to exercise their right to self-determination. But the outcome was that the Arab Palestinians attempted to establish a permanent relationship with Jordan that failed after an unsuccessful Coup d'etat in Jordan and the development of terrorist safe havens in the West Bank and the emergence of Jihadism.

• Peace Treaty, Article 2, Israel-Egypt (1979) without detriment to any existing right or claim by Palestinians:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is 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.
​

• Peace Treaty, Article 3, Israel-Jordan (1994) without detriment to any existing right or claim by Palestinians:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
​

Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to, was a direct result of some action that either the Arab Palestinians did or did not do. Jordan and Egypt never transferred territory to the Arab-Palestinian. The Treaties are between the Israel and the two States of Egypt and Jordan. The treaties were negotiated in the absence of Arab-Palestinian participation because it was not a party to the original conflict and the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not really stand-alone countries exercising soveriegn control. At the time, the Arab-Palestinian were operating under the Khartoum Resolution.

The Khartoum Resolution, which was an extension of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee commitment, essentially drove the Arab-Palestinian into disenfranchisement in any Peace Negotiation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to,...​

Whatever happened to the right to territorial integrity?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I generally let you go, on misstating this as a "right;" it actually is not a "right." It is a "prohibition."

• Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to,...

Whatever happened to the right to territorial integrity?

(REFERENCE)

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Chapter 1 Article 2(4) prohibits other members from taking forceful action against another member. You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

Article 16 does not grant any territory to the Arab Palestinian, the Ottoman/Turks renounces all rights and title to the territory and agrees that the future of these territory being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The Arab Palestinians did not have any internationally agreed upon government until 1988, over the territories known as the occupied Palestinian territories. So the Palestinians did not have any territory subject to the protections under Article 2(4). Basically: You cannot protect something you do not have.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I generally let you go, on misstating this as a "right;" it actually is not a "right." It is a "prohibition."

• Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to,...

Whatever happened to the right to territorial integrity?

(REFERENCE)

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Chapter 1 Article 2(4) prohibits other members from taking forceful action against another member. You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

Article 16 does not grant any territory to the Arab Palestinian, the Ottoman/Turks renounces all rights and title to the territory and agrees that the future of these territory being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The Arab Palestinians did not have any internationally agreed upon government until 1988, over the territories known as the occupied Palestinian territories. So the Palestinians did not have any territory subject to the protections under Article 2(4). Basically: You cannot protect something you do not have.

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.​

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What about them?

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Did not the Arab-Palestinian exercise these rights.

• What did they do in April 1950?
• What did they do in November 1988?

The Arab-Palestinians tried to usurp and already established government; not once but --- twice.

No one denied the Arab Palestinian their rights. But, the Arab-Palestinian claim of a "RIGHT" may not be used to trump the Israeli "RIGHT" to maintain their sovereignty.

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades. The fact that the Arab-Palestinians are still fighting over the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel demonstrates who the aggressor is.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What about them?

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Did not the Arab-Palestinian exercise these rights.

• What did they do in April 1950?
• What did they do in November 1988?

The Arab-Palestinians tried to usurp and already established government; not once but --- twice.

No one denied the Arab Palestinian their rights. But, the Arab-Palestinian claim of a "RIGHT" may not be used to trump the Israeli "RIGHT" to maintain their sovereignty.

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades. The fact that the Arab-Palestinians are still fighting over the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel demonstrates who the aggressor is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades.​

What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

 

[Billo_Really]

Rule 50. The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

Most Respectfully,
R

And if said seizure was done due to military necessity, it must be relinquished upon cessation of hostilities. Rule 50 does lot allow transfer of ownership.

BTW, I'd like to see you explain why collectively punishing 1.5 million people for the last 9 years, is of military necessity.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You asked this many times before. You think it is some sort of a real estate deal, with deed to the land. And you think that some form of authority award gives the Arab-Palestinians some special right to the territory which the Ottoman/Turks relinquished title and rights to the Allied Powers.

This is a pipe dream.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What about them?

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Did not the Arab-Palestinian exercise these rights.

• What did they do in April 1950?
• What did they do in November 1988?

The Arab-Palestinians tried to usurp and already established government; not once but --- twice.

No one denied the Arab Palestinian their rights. But, the Arab-Palestinian claim of a "RIGHT" may not be used to trump the Israeli "RIGHT" to maintain their sovereignty.

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades. The fact that the Arab-Palestinians are still fighting over the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel demonstrates who the aggressor is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades.​

What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as the Arab-Palestinians had the "right of self-determination;" so it is that in 1947 and 1948, the Jewish had the very same very same right to self-determination. The UN Special Committee for Palestine was given the job of reviewing the options and make recommendations to the General Assembly. The recommendation adopted by the General Assembly was Resolution 181(II). The General Assembly established the "Steps Preparatory to Independence;" which the Jewish People (Provisional Government) accomplished their obligation.

In February 1948, the Arab-Palestinians through the Arab High Committee reject the offer to participate, dissatisfied with the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly. The Arab-Palestinians assumed the hostile political position that the Arabs of Palestine would NOT recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, Resolution 181(II), or any adopted guidance arising or derived therefrom. The Hostile Arab-Palestinians further assume the position that the establishment of a Jewish State in Arab territory would be considered an act of aggression. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The Jewish Provisional Government, in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the Successor Government, exercised their right of self-determination on mid-night 14/15 May 1948; establishing the State of Israel. The Arab League launched a multi-national attack, crossing their borders into Israel. by 1949, four Armistice Arrangements were agreed upon by the four border nations (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt).

That is the thumbnail view.

Since the Israeli War of Independence, the Arab-Palestinians, sometimes in conjunction with Arab League members, have continuously attempted to achieve through the use of force and violence, that which they could not achieve by other diplomatic means. They have attempted to justify the Olympic Massacre, numerous suicide bombings, targeted attacks on civilian in civilian venues, kidnapping and murders, with several airline hijackings as the necessary means to achieve there political goals.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You asked this many times before. You think it is some sort of a real estate deal, with deed to the land. And you think that some form of authority award gives the Arab-Palestinians some special right to the territory which the Ottoman/Turks relinquished title and rights to the Allied Powers.

This is a pipe dream.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What about them?

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Did not the Arab-Palestinian exercise these rights.

• What did they do in April 1950?
• What did they do in November 1988?

The Arab-Palestinians tried to usurp and already established government; not once but --- twice.

No one denied the Arab Palestinian their rights. But, the Arab-Palestinian claim of a "RIGHT" may not be used to trump the Israeli "RIGHT" to maintain their sovereignty.

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades. The fact that the Arab-Palestinians are still fighting over the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel demonstrates who the aggressor is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades.​

What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as the Arab-Palestinians had the "right of self-determination;" so it is that in 1947 and 1948, the Jewish had the very same very same right to self-determination. The UN Special Committee for Palestine was given the job of reviewing the options and make recommendations to the General Assembly. The recommendation adopted by the General Assembly was Resolution 181(II). The General Assembly established the "Steps Preparatory to Independence;" which the Jewish People (Provisional Government) accomplished their obligation.

In February 1948, the Arab-Palestinians through the Arab High Committee reject the offer to participate, dissatisfied with the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly. The Arab-Palestinians assumed the hostile political position that the Arabs of Palestine would NOT recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, Resolution 181(II), or any adopted guidance arising or derived therefrom. The Hostile Arab-Palestinians further assume the position that the establishment of a Jewish State in Arab territory would be considered an act of aggression. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The Jewish Provisional Government, in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the Successor Government, exercised their right of self-determination on mid-night 14/15 May 1948; establishing the State of Israel. The Arab League launched a multi-national attack, crossing their borders into Israel. by 1949, four Armistice Arrangements were agreed upon by the four border nations (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt).

That is the thumbnail view.

Since the Israeli War of Independence, the Arab-Palestinians, sometimes in conjunction with Arab League members, have continuously attempted to achieve through the use of force and violence, that which they could not achieve by other diplomatic means. They have attempted to justify the Olympic Massacre, numerous suicide bombings, targeted attacks on civilian in civilian venues, kidnapping and murders, with several airline hijackings as the necessary means to achieve there political goals.

Most Respectfully,
R

Just as the Arab-Palestinians had the "right of self-determination;" so it is that in 1947 and 1948, the Jewish had the very same very same right to self-determination.​

The Palestinians have their right to self determination in Palestine.

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You asked this many times before. You think it is some sort of a real estate deal, with deed to the land. And you think that some form of authority award gives the Arab-Palestinians some special right to the territory which the Ottoman/Turks relinquished title and rights to the Allied Powers.

This is a pipe dream.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What about them?

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Did not the Arab-Palestinian exercise these rights.

• What did they do in April 1950?
• What did they do in November 1988?

The Arab-Palestinians tried to usurp and already established government; not once but --- twice.

No one denied the Arab Palestinian their rights. But, the Arab-Palestinian claim of a "RIGHT" may not be used to trump the Israeli "RIGHT" to maintain their sovereignty.

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades. The fact that the Arab-Palestinians are still fighting over the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel demonstrates who the aggressor is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab-Palestinian cannot claim sovereignty over a territory that has been under Israeli Sovereignty for seven decades.​

What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as the Arab-Palestinians had the "right of self-determination;" so it is that in 1947 and 1948, the Jewish had the very same very same right to self-determination. The UN Special Committee for Palestine was given the job of reviewing the options and make recommendations to the General Assembly. The recommendation adopted by the General Assembly was Resolution 181(II). The General Assembly established the "Steps Preparatory to Independence;" which the Jewish People (Provisional Government) accomplished their obligation.

In February 1948, the Arab-Palestinians through the Arab High Committee reject the offer to participate, dissatisfied with the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly. The Arab-Palestinians assumed the hostile political position that the Arabs of Palestine would NOT recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, Resolution 181(II), or any adopted guidance arising or derived therefrom. The Hostile Arab-Palestinians further assume the position that the establishment of a Jewish State in Arab territory would be considered an act of aggression. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The Jewish Provisional Government, in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, the Successor Government, exercised their right of self-determination on mid-night 14/15 May 1948; establishing the State of Israel. The Arab League launched a multi-national attack, crossing their borders into Israel. by 1949, four Armistice Arrangements were agreed upon by the four border nations (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt).

That is the thumbnail view.

Since the Israeli War of Independence, the Arab-Palestinians, sometimes in conjunction with Arab League members, have continuously attempted to achieve through the use of force and violence, that which they could not achieve by other diplomatic means. They have attempted to justify the Olympic Massacre, numerous suicide bombings, targeted attacks on civilian in civilian venues, kidnapping and murders, with several airline hijackings as the necessary means to achieve there political goals.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. They had every right to reject the partition of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Well I don't think the Israelis have much to worry about. In the las seven decades, there has not been a single month in which the Hostile Arab-Palestinian did not launch an attack on civilian targets.

Rule 50. The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

Most Respectfully,
R

And if said seizure was done due to military necessity, it must be relinquished upon cessation of hostilities. Rule 50 does lot allow transfer of ownership.

BTW, I'd like to see you explain why collectively punishing 1.5 million people for the last 9 years, is of military necessity.

(COMMENT)

I don't think you have a clue as to what the intent was in the description of "collective punishment."

Collective punishment is a form of retaliation whereby a suspected perpetrator's family members, friends, acquaintances, sect, neighbors or entire ethnic group is targeted. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions.

It is not a "collective punishment" if it was executed as a countermeasure in response to an announced criminal activity; demonstrative as part of a pattern of hostile criminal behaviors.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are playing this tone again by changing the names and trying to make an associate that is not there.

(COMMENT)

Just as the Arab-Palestinians had the "right of self-determination;" so it is that in 1947 and 1948, the Jewish had the very same very same right to self-determination.​

​

The Palestinians have their right to self determination in Palestine.

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

(COMMENT)

First-off: In May 1948, Palestine was not a self-governing entity; but the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Second: The Jewish followed the guidance of the UN Palestine Commission and the complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Third: The Arab-Palestinians reject the option to participate.

The Jewish had the territory outlined in the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are playing this tone again by changing the names and trying to make an associate that is not there.

(COMMENT)

Just as the Arab-Palestinians had the "right of self-determination;" so it is that in 1947 and 1948, the Jewish had the very same very same right to self-determination.​

​

The Palestinians have their right to self determination in Palestine.

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

(COMMENT)

First-off: In May 1948, Palestine was not a self-governing entity; but the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Second: The Jewish followed the guidance of the UN Palestine Commission and the complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Third: The Arab-Palestinians reject the option to participate.

The Jewish had the territory outlined in the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

The people in non self governing territories have rights.

The Security Council failed to implement the partition plan. There was no partition territory.

Why do you keep bringing this up?