Proposed borders have no validity until they are negotiated by mutual consent, so no violation took place. Who was it took control of Jerusalem and forcibly evicted the MAJORITY of the occupants in 1948/1949. What 1948 rights were violated then ?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
Proposed borders have no validity until they are negotiated by mutual consent, so no violation took place. Who was it took control of Jerusalem and forcibly evicted the MAJORITY of the occupants in 1948/1949. What 1948 rights were violated then ?
P F Tinmore, et al,
(COMMENT)No it didn't.Israel Declared Independence over the initial territory outlined in the Annex A Plan of Partition with Economic Union;...
Oh, come now!
Text of Main Body --- Israeli Declaration of Independence said:HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947 MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE. WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS”. ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.
Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948 said:It was the general view of the Commission members that the General Assembly resolution of last November 29 remained intact and that therefore the Commission was not and could not be legally dissolved.
---------------------------------------------- A N D ----------------------------------------------During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
Application for Admission --- A/AC.24/SR.45 said:In that connexion, Mr. Malik (Lebanon) quoted from section F, part I of the Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which stated that sympathetic consideration should be given to the application for membership of either the Jewish or the Arab State, when the independence of either as envisaged in the plan had become effective and the declaration and undertaking as envisaged in the plan had been signed by either of them.
---------------------------------------------- A N D ----------------------------------------------Referring to Arab opposition to the application of Israel, Mr. Eban stated that the Arab States which now advocated compliance with General Assembly resolutions had in the past assaulted the very foundations of the United Nations by attempting to overthrow a General Assembly resolution by force. The threats they had uttered in various bodies of the United Nations, and which had been translated in destruction and slaughter, had rested upon the doctrine of the optional character of the resolutions of the General Assembly.
I think it is quite obvious that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”. Deviation from the implementation was a direct result of the Arab Forces deliberately attempting to defy the General Assembly.
Most Respectfully,
RISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE
When the liars mentioned resolution 181 they had already violated the proposed borders, violated the international city of Jerusalem, and violated the rights if the native population. They only mentioned it to pretend to have some legitimacy.
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
Proposed borders have no validity until they are negotiated by mutual consent, so no violation took place. Who was it took control of Jerusalem and forcibly evicted the MAJORITY of the occupants in 1948/1949. What 1948 rights were violated then ?
pbel
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 5,653
- 449
Again braying jackass, Independence from whom?Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?
The only reason I can come up with is that in the wikipedia link it says
War of Independence my arse! Independence from whom?pbel, et al,
Yes, let's do --- "break it down to a simple logic of Human understanding..."
(COMMENT)How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!
Right and Wrong have very little to do with real life...
This reality is hard to accept. But life is not fair --- either at the individual level or the macro-Level for the aspiration of an entire people. We want to believe that if we are good, we will be rewarded. The Arab Palestinians did not want the outcome of the 1948 War to be more favorable to the Israelis; after all it was four stablizied Arab countries with support from other, against one newly formed country --- smaller than any if it individual opponents. Yet the Israelis come out of its War of Indepedence with control of 25% more territory. The Arab Palestinians want to maintain the illusion that life is much simpler than it is --- and that if they maintain a century of protest they just might establish more control than they actually have.
The Arab Palestinian needs to assess the reality:
"Give us the grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed, grant the Courage
to change the things which should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
("The Serenity Prayer" by Elisabeth Sifton)
The reality is that in the world of current events, this protest has just about run its course.
You ask: How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people.
Answer: It has happened before --- it is happening now --- and will happen again.
In the Roman Empire, Displaced Persons and Refugees emerged as a significant issue in the third and fourth centuries AD – especially in the western (European) provinces. The best known of these are the Goths. The Chinese Diaspora (mass emigration) that started in the 19th century; along with the displacement of Native Americans. There was the deported and elimination of millions of Jews and many millions of others were likewise enslaved or murdered, including Ukrainians, Russians and other Slavs. The 1947 Partition resulted in the migration of millions of people between India and Pakistan. Millions were killed in the sectarian violence of the period, with estimates of fatalities up to 2 million people. Iraqis and ISIS are examples of sectarian violence that displaced large numbers. The Afghan diaspora resulted from the 1979 invasion by the former Soviet Union; a war that displaced nearly 6 million people. And then their was the many thousands of people that fled from the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 into neighboring countries.
Other Examples include:
Throughout history there have been many - many displacements. I realize that my opening a discussion on the concepts of such things as Development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR), colonialism, and colonization --- was probably a little too much to discuss with those that endlessly plead foul play, victimization, misfeasance/malfeasance and nonfeasance --- not to mention the ethics and justice of the decisions of old. But honestly, I don't think that in the world-reality of Islamic Fundamentalism --- that the International Community is going to displace or overrun a stable nation and replace it with a Regime spawned by Islamic Resistance Movement, Jihadist and Fedayeen. No one once another Regional failure like Syria, of a country intimidated by Hezbollah terrorists, or trade Israel for another failed state like Yemen, Iraq, or Pakistan with monstrous debt, poverty, and rampant Islamic extremism. Nor does anyone want to see another example like the SUDAN: Home to the brutal genocide in Darfur, Sudan got the worst possible scores for refugees, group grievances, factionalized elites, and external intervention.
- There was the incorporation of Tibet into China --- 1951.
- The forced annexation of Western New Guinea by Indonesia in 1969.
- In 1979, and after a military putsch, Mauritania withdrew from the territory which left it controlled by Morocco. A UN peace process was initiated in 1991, but stalled.
- March 2014, Russia annexed most of the Crimean Peninsula, at that time part of Ukraine.
Most Respectfully,
R
Israel you moron. The war started a day after Israel declared independence. In Hebrew, the war is called Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut
Again braying jackass, Independence from whom?Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?
The only reason I can come up with is that in the wikipedia link it says
War of Independence my arse! Independence from whom?pbel, et al,
Yes, let's do --- "break it down to a simple logic of Human understanding..."
(COMMENT)How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!
Right and Wrong have very little to do with real life...
This reality is hard to accept. But life is not fair --- either at the individual level or the macro-Level for the aspiration of an entire people. We want to believe that if we are good, we will be rewarded. The Arab Palestinians did not want the outcome of the 1948 War to be more favorable to the Israelis; after all it was four stablizied Arab countries with support from other, against one newly formed country --- smaller than any if it individual opponents. Yet the Israelis come out of its War of Indepedence with control of 25% more territory. The Arab Palestinians want to maintain the illusion that life is much simpler than it is --- and that if they maintain a century of protest they just might establish more control than they actually have.
The Arab Palestinian needs to assess the reality:
"Give us the grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed, grant the Courage
to change the things which should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
("The Serenity Prayer" by Elisabeth Sifton)
The reality is that in the world of current events, this protest has just about run its course.
You ask: How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people.
Answer: It has happened before --- it is happening now --- and will happen again.
In the Roman Empire, Displaced Persons and Refugees emerged as a significant issue in the third and fourth centuries AD – especially in the western (European) provinces. The best known of these are the Goths. The Chinese Diaspora (mass emigration) that started in the 19th century; along with the displacement of Native Americans. There was the deported and elimination of millions of Jews and many millions of others were likewise enslaved or murdered, including Ukrainians, Russians and other Slavs. The 1947 Partition resulted in the migration of millions of people between India and Pakistan. Millions were killed in the sectarian violence of the period, with estimates of fatalities up to 2 million people. Iraqis and ISIS are examples of sectarian violence that displaced large numbers. The Afghan diaspora resulted from the 1979 invasion by the former Soviet Union; a war that displaced nearly 6 million people. And then their was the many thousands of people that fled from the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 into neighboring countries.
Other Examples include:
Throughout history there have been many - many displacements. I realize that my opening a discussion on the concepts of such things as Development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR), colonialism, and colonization --- was probably a little too much to discuss with those that endlessly plead foul play, victimization, misfeasance/malfeasance and nonfeasance --- not to mention the ethics and justice of the decisions of old. But honestly, I don't think that in the world-reality of Islamic Fundamentalism --- that the International Community is going to displace or overrun a stable nation and replace it with a Regime spawned by Islamic Resistance Movement, Jihadist and Fedayeen. No one once another Regional failure like Syria, of a country intimidated by Hezbollah terrorists, or trade Israel for another failed state like Yemen, Iraq, or Pakistan with monstrous debt, poverty, and rampant Islamic extremism. Nor does anyone want to see another example like the SUDAN: Home to the brutal genocide in Darfur, Sudan got the worst possible scores for refugees, group grievances, factionalized elites, and external intervention.
- There was the incorporation of Tibet into China --- 1951.
- The forced annexation of Western New Guinea by Indonesia in 1969.
- In 1979, and after a military putsch, Mauritania withdrew from the territory which left it controlled by Morocco. A UN peace process was initiated in 1991, but stalled.
- March 2014, Russia annexed most of the Crimean Peninsula, at that time part of Ukraine.
Most Respectfully,
R
Israel you moron. The war started a day after Israel declared independence. In Hebrew, the war is called Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut
The same people that the state of Palestine declared it was independent from in 1988 of course.............. Are you that slow witted you don't know
Challenger
Gold Member
- Jun 25, 2014
- 5,586
- 725
Is that all you got. Try again moron. Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs. Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document? Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?
Allow me.
Israel s Transfer Committee Ethnic Cleansing and an enormous process of destruction
Why Israel is Wrong The Case Against Israel s System of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing
IslamoNazi sources? Thanks, I was running out of toilet paper.
Nah, this is toilet paper Amin Al Husseini Nazi Father of Jihad Al Qaeda Arafat Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage
RoccoR
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 11,942
- 3,556
P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, you are almost correct.
All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.Armistice lines are not borders. They do not define anything.
What do armistice lines have to do with anything ?
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
Challenger
Gold Member
- Jun 25, 2014
- 5,586
- 725
What do you classify as an "official" site?Is that all you got. Try again moron. Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs. Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document? Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?
Allow me.
Israel s Transfer Committee Ethnic Cleansing and an enormous process of destruction
Why Israel is Wrong The Case Against Israel s System of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing
Talk about scraping the barrel, you are actually underneath it with these links
The HyperTexts is an on-line poetry journal with a simple goal: to showcase the best poetry, literary prose and art available to us. We are not a "formal" journal or a "free verse" journal; we simply publish the best poetry we can find. We ask our poets to provide us with their career-defining work (that is, career-defining in their opinion, not someone else's); thus, most of our poems have been published elsewhere. While other poetry journals seem to quail at the thought of their poems having been read elsewhere, we sincerely doubt that anyone has ever been harmed by reading good poems more than once.
from your links so showing they are not what was asked for
The site also includes texts sourced about the Nakba including works and quotes by prominent Jewish intellectuals.
Jewish Intellectuals Who Have Opposed Zionism and or Israeli Racism Inustices Apartheid and or Ethnic Cleansing
Unless you can disprove the information provided it's a valid "one stop shop" that saves me the time and effort of digging out the original information. So yes it does show what was asked for; prove otherwise.
So, no OFFICIAL sites proving that actual evictions and ethnic cleansing occurred. Just bullshit opinions, IslamoNazi sites, speculations, and false propaganda.
Like I thought.
You got nothin'.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,107
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, you are almost correct.
All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.What do armistice lines have to do with anything ?
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers."
Rocco et al.
Not at all.
The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s) was:
"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"
Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant, is not sovereignty.
.
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,176
- 4,387
- Thread starter
- #409
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, you are almost correct.
All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.What do armistice lines have to do with anything ?
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it?
So you are saying that military conquest is not illegal?
BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 59,584
- 17,896
What do you classify as an "official" site?Is that all you got. Try again moron. Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs. Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document? Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?
Allow me.
Israel s Transfer Committee Ethnic Cleansing and an enormous process of destruction
Why Israel is Wrong The Case Against Israel s System of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing
Talk about scraping the barrel, you are actually underneath it with these links
The HyperTexts is an on-line poetry journal with a simple goal: to showcase the best poetry, literary prose and art available to us. We are not a "formal" journal or a "free verse" journal; we simply publish the best poetry we can find. We ask our poets to provide us with their career-defining work (that is, career-defining in their opinion, not someone else's); thus, most of our poems have been published elsewhere. While other poetry journals seem to quail at the thought of their poems having been read elsewhere, we sincerely doubt that anyone has ever been harmed by reading good poems more than once.
from your links so showing they are not what was asked for
The site also includes texts sourced about the Nakba including works and quotes by prominent Jewish intellectuals.
Jewish Intellectuals Who Have Opposed Zionism and or Israeli Racism Inustices Apartheid and or Ethnic Cleansing
Unless you can disprove the information provided it's a valid "one stop shop" that saves me the time and effort of digging out the original information. So yes it does show what was asked for; prove otherwise.
So, no OFFICIAL sites proving that actual evictions and ethnic cleansing occurred. Just bullshit opinions, IslamoNazi sites, speculations, and false propaganda.
Like I thought.
You got nothin'.
A site that doesn't publish opinion pieces by terrorist ass kissers and leftist morons.
Is that all you got. Try again moron. Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs. Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document? Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?
Allow me.
Israel s Transfer Committee Ethnic Cleansing and an enormous process of destruction
Why Israel is Wrong The Case Against Israel s System of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing
IslamoNazi sources? Thanks, I was running out of toilet paper.
Nah, this is toilet paper Amin Al Husseini Nazi Father of Jihad Al Qaeda Arafat Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage
Why because it tells the truth about the Palestinian muslims, and this goes against your indoctrination doesn't it.
I see that Milli is looking like losing by a large majority in the upcoming elections because of his bed mates ?
What do you classify as an "official" site?Is that all you got. Try again moron. Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs. Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document? Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?
Allow me.
Israel s Transfer Committee Ethnic Cleansing and an enormous process of destruction
Why Israel is Wrong The Case Against Israel s System of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing
Talk about scraping the barrel, you are actually underneath it with these links
The HyperTexts is an on-line poetry journal with a simple goal: to showcase the best poetry, literary prose and art available to us. We are not a "formal" journal or a "free verse" journal; we simply publish the best poetry we can find. We ask our poets to provide us with their career-defining work (that is, career-defining in their opinion, not someone else's); thus, most of our poems have been published elsewhere. While other poetry journals seem to quail at the thought of their poems having been read elsewhere, we sincerely doubt that anyone has ever been harmed by reading good poems more than once.
from your links so showing they are not what was asked for
The site also includes texts sourced about the Nakba including works and quotes by prominent Jewish intellectuals.
Jewish Intellectuals Who Have Opposed Zionism and or Israeli Racism Inustices Apartheid and or Ethnic Cleansing
Unless you can disprove the information provided it's a valid "one stop shop" that saves me the time and effort of digging out the original information. So yes it does show what was asked for; prove otherwise.
So, no OFFICIAL sites proving that actual evictions and ethnic cleansing occurred. Just bullshit opinions, IslamoNazi sites, speculations, and false propaganda.
Like I thought.
You got nothin'.
Not some site that posts poetry, unless the thread is about that poetry
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, you are almost correct.
All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority. That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers.
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers."
Rocco et al.
Not at all.
The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s) was:
"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"
Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant, is not sovereignty.
.
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."[/QUOTE]
And the disclaimer at the end sums it up
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development
The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.
fanger
Gold Member
- May 21, 2014
- 5,745
- 507
This disturbing video shows Israeli youths, escorted by police and occupation forces, marching through the Old City of Jerusalem chanting “mavet la’aravim” – “death to the Arabs”
According to the racism-monitoring website Kifaya, the 19 April march was part of the monthly “Tour of the Gates” by Jewish extremists through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.
As part of the event, held at the beginning of every month according to the Jewish calendar, the one-kilometer-long route is blocked to Palestinians, and businesses and stores must close, Kifaya says.
Palestinians are forbidden from leaving their homes during the march.
“Some 1,500 Jews participated in the march,” Kifaya says, “and it was secured by hundreds of policemen and soldiers, who thronged the area.”
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, you are almost correct.
All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority. That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers.
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it?
So you are saying that military conquest is not illegal?
BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf[/QUOTE]
Nope the answer is in the post CAN THEY DEFEND IT ?
Wrong as it deals with the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and no the sovereignty of the Palestinians, who in 1947 happened to be the Jews.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, you are almost correct.
All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority. That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers.
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it?
So you are saying that military conquest is not illegal?
BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf[/QUOTE]
Nope the answer is in the post CAN THEY DEFEND IT ?
Wrong as it deals with the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and no the sovereignty of the Palestinians, who in 1947 happened to be the Jews.
Again braying jackass, Independence from whom?Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?
The only reason I can come up with is that in the wikipedia link it says
War of Independence my arse! Independence from whom?pbel, et al,
Yes, let's do --- "break it down to a simple logic of Human understanding..."
(COMMENT)How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!
Right and Wrong have very little to do with real life...
This reality is hard to accept. But life is not fair --- either at the individual level or the macro-Level for the aspiration of an entire people. We want to believe that if we are good, we will be rewarded. The Arab Palestinians did not want the outcome of the 1948 War to be more favorable to the Israelis; after all it was four stablizied Arab countries with support from other, against one newly formed country --- smaller than any if it individual opponents. Yet the Israelis come out of its War of Indepedence with control of 25% more territory. The Arab Palestinians want to maintain the illusion that life is much simpler than it is --- and that if they maintain a century of protest they just might establish more control than they actually have.
The Arab Palestinian needs to assess the reality:
"Give us the grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed, grant the Courage
to change the things which should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
("The Serenity Prayer" by Elisabeth Sifton)
The reality is that in the world of current events, this protest has just about run its course.
You ask: How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people.
Answer: It has happened before --- it is happening now --- and will happen again.
In the Roman Empire, Displaced Persons and Refugees emerged as a significant issue in the third and fourth centuries AD – especially in the western (European) provinces. The best known of these are the Goths. The Chinese Diaspora (mass emigration) that started in the 19th century; along with the displacement of Native Americans. There was the deported and elimination of millions of Jews and many millions of others were likewise enslaved or murdered, including Ukrainians, Russians and other Slavs. The 1947 Partition resulted in the migration of millions of people between India and Pakistan. Millions were killed in the sectarian violence of the period, with estimates of fatalities up to 2 million people. Iraqis and ISIS are examples of sectarian violence that displaced large numbers. The Afghan diaspora resulted from the 1979 invasion by the former Soviet Union; a war that displaced nearly 6 million people. And then their was the many thousands of people that fled from the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 into neighboring countries.
Other Examples include:
Throughout history there have been many - many displacements. I realize that my opening a discussion on the concepts of such things as Development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR), colonialism, and colonization --- was probably a little too much to discuss with those that endlessly plead foul play, victimization, misfeasance/malfeasance and nonfeasance --- not to mention the ethics and justice of the decisions of old. But honestly, I don't think that in the world-reality of Islamic Fundamentalism --- that the International Community is going to displace or overrun a stable nation and replace it with a Regime spawned by Islamic Resistance Movement, Jihadist and Fedayeen. No one once another Regional failure like Syria, of a country intimidated by Hezbollah terrorists, or trade Israel for another failed state like Yemen, Iraq, or Pakistan with monstrous debt, poverty, and rampant Islamic extremism. Nor does anyone want to see another example like the SUDAN: Home to the brutal genocide in Darfur, Sudan got the worst possible scores for refugees, group grievances, factionalized elites, and external intervention.
- There was the incorporation of Tibet into China --- 1951.
- The forced annexation of Western New Guinea by Indonesia in 1969.
- In 1979, and after a military putsch, Mauritania withdrew from the territory which left it controlled by Morocco. A UN peace process was initiated in 1991, but stalled.
- March 2014, Russia annexed most of the Crimean Peninsula, at that time part of Ukraine.
Most Respectfully,
R
Israel you moron. The war started a day after Israel declared independence. In Hebrew, the war is called Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut
You're asking the wrong question Pbel.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,107
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.(COMMENT)
First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.
Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries. That is just fact, a matter of record.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority. That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers.
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers."
Rocco et al.
Not at all.
The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s) was:
"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"
Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant, is not sovereignty.
.
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
And the disclaimer at the end sums it up
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development
The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.[/QUOTE]
No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.
"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."
And, as confirmed by Britannica and elsewhere:
Class A mandate
League of Nations
This topic is discussed in the following articles:
- divisions of mandate system
Mandate (League of Nations)
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great..."
Nice try, but no cigar. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself?
RoccoR
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 11,942
- 3,556
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes... I've seen you raise this issue before.
Depending one your point of reference, many would contend that the Civil War in Palestine started shortly after the November 1947 siege of the Jaffa Gate and the destruction of the commercial center in that quarter of Jerusalem and the Manshiyeh quarter. But generally speaking, the Arab Palestinians and British start clock on 1 June 1946 (with the bombing of the King David Hotel) to 15 May 1948 (when the Jewish Agency facilitated the Provisional Government of Israel to declare independence), for general time frame of the Civil War.
I notice that anything you disagree with or that varies from your interpretation --- you declare a lie. With you, that word has entirely lost meaning.
Up until 29 November 1947, there was no possibility of violating the Partition Plan (GA/RES/181), as it had not been adopted yet. You cannot violate anything about a non-binding Resolution until its made real. In that sense, both Jew and Arab had free legal travel to move or travel anywhere within the Territory still under the application of the Mandate for Palestine. You simply cannot violate Any proposed borders, that violated the International City of Jerusalem --- it was not an International City.
What is was (ever truly International or not) is a point in fact.
As for who did what when back --- seven decades ago, is irrelevant. Whether is was honest, fair, or just --- is irrelevant. What is relevant is who exercises positive sovereign control over what territories. Is there any reasonable expectation that it will change in the foreseeable future?
The US and the UN cannot promise that, if Israel where to surrender its sovereignty and relinquish it to the Arab Palestinians, that the US and UN could protect the Jewish National Home from the reoccurrence that prompted the original Allied Powers --- and the events of a half century ago that actually demonstrated that special protections were warranted, prompting the WWII Allied Powers and UN General Assembly to take the actions it did and make the decisions it made.
There is no reason to believe --- given the outcomes and value of the US Presidential Promises (Clinton and Obama) to the Ukraine --- that Israel should trust in the protection of either. The Ukraine gave up their military. The Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal which they gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded and their sovereignty would remain intact. And what happened, the Russians annexed the Crimea by force and no one lifted a finger to prevent it. Why should the Israelis give any credibility to an evolving US and UN. No. The Israelis must take control and protect themselves. Even if it makes a country populated by hundreds of thousands of unproductive Jihadist and Fedayeen Palestinians angry.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes... I've seen you raise this issue before.
(COMMENT)ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINEWhen the liars mentioned resolution 181 they had already violated the proposed borders, violated the international city of Jerusalem, and violated the rights if the native population. They only mentioned it to pretend to have some legitimacy.
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
Depending one your point of reference, many would contend that the Civil War in Palestine started shortly after the November 1947 siege of the Jaffa Gate and the destruction of the commercial center in that quarter of Jerusalem and the Manshiyeh quarter. But generally speaking, the Arab Palestinians and British start clock on 1 June 1946 (with the bombing of the King David Hotel) to 15 May 1948 (when the Jewish Agency facilitated the Provisional Government of Israel to declare independence), for general time frame of the Civil War.
I notice that anything you disagree with or that varies from your interpretation --- you declare a lie. With you, that word has entirely lost meaning.
Up until 29 November 1947, there was no possibility of violating the Partition Plan (GA/RES/181), as it had not been adopted yet. You cannot violate anything about a non-binding Resolution until its made real. In that sense, both Jew and Arab had free legal travel to move or travel anywhere within the Territory still under the application of the Mandate for Palestine. You simply cannot violate Any proposed borders, that violated the International City of Jerusalem --- it was not an International City.
What is was (ever truly International or not) is a point in fact.
- The State of Israel has annex a portion and made it the capital.
- The State of Palestine also declared that Jerusalem was their capital.
- Do either country (Israel or Palestine) have sovereign control over and specific part of Jerusalem?
As for who did what when back --- seven decades ago, is irrelevant. Whether is was honest, fair, or just --- is irrelevant. What is relevant is who exercises positive sovereign control over what territories. Is there any reasonable expectation that it will change in the foreseeable future?
The US and the UN cannot promise that, if Israel where to surrender its sovereignty and relinquish it to the Arab Palestinians, that the US and UN could protect the Jewish National Home from the reoccurrence that prompted the original Allied Powers --- and the events of a half century ago that actually demonstrated that special protections were warranted, prompting the WWII Allied Powers and UN General Assembly to take the actions it did and make the decisions it made.
There is no reason to believe --- given the outcomes and value of the US Presidential Promises (Clinton and Obama) to the Ukraine --- that Israel should trust in the protection of either. The Ukraine gave up their military. The Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal which they gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded and their sovereignty would remain intact. And what happened, the Russians annexed the Crimea by force and no one lifted a finger to prevent it. Why should the Israelis give any credibility to an evolving US and UN. No. The Israelis must take control and protect themselves. Even if it makes a country populated by hundreds of thousands of unproductive Jihadist and Fedayeen Palestinians angry.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
A state should have a defined territory.(COMMENT)P F Tinmore, et al,
If this is the border question, I answered that.
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.
Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.
(ANSWERS)
Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.
- Where is Israel's defined territory?
- It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.
- When did it legally acquire that territory?
- Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.
The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian. The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers. This is a document fact of history. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 (when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration), and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority. That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers.
- OETA South: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
- OETA East: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
- OETA West: Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya (and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line).
Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.
Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper. Under the "declarative theory" (as in Declaration of Independence) of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states. (However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.) In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action (the "question of fact") as a part of their establishment (often called a war of independence).
A "defined territory" is not just any territory. It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.
As YOU SAY: The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment. The Arab Palestinian People did not do this. The Jewish People did. In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it? The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.
Most Respectfully,
R
" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers."
Rocco et al.
Not at all.
The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s) was:
"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"
Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant, is not sovereignty.
.
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
And the disclaimer at the end sums it up
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development
The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.
No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.
"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."
And, as confirmed by Britannica and elsewhere:
Class A mandate
League of Nations
This topic is discussed in the following articles:
- divisions of mandate system
Mandate (League of Nations)
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great..."
Nice try, but no cigar. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself?[/QUOTE]
You are the one making a fool of yourself by posting one thing and then contradicting what you have just posted. The Jews were considered to be able to create a nation and stand on their own feet , the arab muslims were not as they were farm workers and tramps. Still the same today as the evidence shows, why haven't they taken the next step after declaring independence and formed a proper nation. No one is stopping them from sitting down and talking mutual borders but themselves. They know when they do they will lose every penny in aid and have to generate their own income, and pay their bills for water, gas and electricity
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 122
- Replies
- 62
- Views
- 810
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 190
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 33
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 28
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 79
- Replies
- 152
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8558
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-