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.
When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.The armistice lines define the areas called Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.What do Armistice lines have to do with anything ??? Israel is defined by internationally recognized boundaries with Jordan (East) and Egypt (West). The border with Lebanon is called the blue line (ceasefire line created in 2000) and the border with Syria is called the purple line (1967). The latter two are armistice lines, but not the ones from 1948.
What question?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.The armistice lines define the areas called Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
What question?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.
What question?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.
What question?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?What question?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land by force has been illegal since the end of WWII. You've been told this several times, why do you still keep stating this nonsense?Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
Acquiring land by force has been illegal since the end of WWII. You've been told this several times, why do you still keep stating this nonsense?Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
You cannot declare sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.
BTW, you country is fucked!
I guess that whenever you create a state you need someplace to put it goes over your head.Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
You said acquiring land and practicing sovereignty are two different issues. I'm saying they are not. One is dependent on the other. You cannot have sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed
Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
(COMMENT)Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?What question?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.
Yes, they ARE two different issues moron. Israel legally declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. Read my response to Monti.You said acquiring land and practicing sovereignty are two different issues. I'm saying they are not. One is dependent on the other. You cannot have sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed
Rocco et al:
Notwithstanding the fact that countries acquire territory by conquest, it is illegal. The Europeans that conquered a large part of Palestine and the Russians that conquered Crimea both did so illegally. That's just a fact.
Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.
False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.
IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.
"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."
Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.
False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.
IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.
"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."
Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force. That is a fact. And, conquering land through force is illegal. What part of that do you not understand.
The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain. The English Crown chartered colonies in North America. It does not make it legal or right.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Obviously, you missed this point several times. I've tried to explain it several different ways. And again, in Posting 828, I've tried yet another way. And again --- you go back to this idea of land acquisition --- for civil real-estate and territorial captures. Please go back to Posting #828 and re-read it. If you are unwilling to take my word for it, then I have also given you three more references from three other independent sources on the "Constitutive" and "Declarative" Theory. Neither of which even remotely requires your improper assumption of territorial acquisition (by military conquest or discovery --- of by real-estate acquisition or land transfer). Because, no matter how logical it sounds to you, in my forty years of experience, I've never seen it done that way.
(REFERENCES)
Sovereign state
Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members
In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]
The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
Contents
- 4 Relationship between state and government
- 5 State extinction
- 6 Ontological status of the state
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 Further reading
- 10 External links
Emergence of states
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state".[4] States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.[5]
Sovereign state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sovereign state is a state with borders where people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes. Most sovereign states are recognized which means other sovereign states agree that it's really a sovereign state. Being recognized makes it easier for a sovereign state to talk to and make agreements (treaties) with other sovereign states. There are hundreds of recognized sovereign states today - see List of sovereign states.
Contents
There is no rule to say what exactly makes a state. Usually, the things a state must have are mainly political, not legal.[1] The Czechs and the Poles were seen as separate states during World War I, even though they did not exist as states yet. L.C. Green explained this by saying that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."[2]
This means that it is up to any state that already exists to treat any other group as a state. This recognition can be direct or implied. When a state does this, it usually means that the group will also be treated as a state for things that happened in the past. It does not need to mean that the state wants to have a diplomaticrelationship with the other group.
Constitutive theory of statehood
Main page: Constitutive theory of statehood
In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act only recognized 39 sovereign states in Europe. Because of this, they said that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states. In practice, this meant recognition by one or more of the most powerful countries.[6]
This constitutive theory was developed in the 19th century to describe what is and is not a state. With this theory, the need to follow international law depends on whether other sovereign governments recognize the group. Because of this, new states could not become part of the international community or be bound by international law immediately, so recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[7]
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion that happens when some states recognize a new group, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the main people who supported the theory, suggested that it is a state's job to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any set of rules when judging if they should give recognition. Many states may only recognize another state if it will help them.[7]
Declarative theory of statehood
Main page: Montevideo Convention
One of the criteria most commonly used by micronations is the Montevideo Convention. The Montevideo Convention was signed on December 26 1933. The Montevideo Convention has four conditions that a group "should" meet to become a state:Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
- a population that lives there
- a set piece of land
- a government
- the ability to enter into relations with other states
Article by: William Worster, Universities of The Hague and Missouri-Kansas City (February 2010)
International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view.
(COMMENT)Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?
Que song and dance
3
2
1
It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
I believe that your mistake in understanding is in the layman's oversimplification of the means by which nations, states and empires are developed. And while I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, it is clear to me that you have been infected by some theory which no support.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Obviously, you missed this point several times. I've tried to explain it several different ways. And again, in Posting 828, I've tried yet another way. And again --- you go back to this idea of land acquisition --- for civil real-estate and territorial captures. Please go back to Posting #828 and re-read it. If you are unwilling to take my word for it, then I have also given you three more references from three other independent sources on the "Constitutive" and "Declarative" Theory. Neither of which even remotely requires your improper assumption of territorial acquisition (by military conquest or discovery --- of by real-estate acquisition or land transfer). Because, no matter how logical it sounds to you, in my forty years of experience, I've never seen it done that way.
(REFERENCES)
Sovereign state
Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members
In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]
The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
Contents
- 4 Relationship between state and government
- 5 State extinction
- 6 Ontological status of the state
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 Further reading
- 10 External links
Emergence of states
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state".[4] States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.[5]
Sovereign state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sovereign state is a state with borders where people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes. Most sovereign states are recognized which means other sovereign states agree that it's really a sovereign state. Being recognized makes it easier for a sovereign state to talk to and make agreements (treaties) with other sovereign states. There are hundreds of recognized sovereign states today - see List of sovereign states.
Contents
There is no rule to say what exactly makes a state. Usually, the things a state must have are mainly political, not legal.[1] The Czechs and the Poles were seen as separate states during World War I, even though they did not exist as states yet. L.C. Green explained this by saying that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."[2]
This means that it is up to any state that already exists to treat any other group as a state. This recognition can be direct or implied. When a state does this, it usually means that the group will also be treated as a state for things that happened in the past. It does not need to mean that the state wants to have a diplomaticrelationship with the other group.
Constitutive theory of statehood
Main page: Constitutive theory of statehood
In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act only recognized 39 sovereign states in Europe. Because of this, they said that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states. In practice, this meant recognition by one or more of the most powerful countries.[6]
This constitutive theory was developed in the 19th century to describe what is and is not a state. With this theory, the need to follow international law depends on whether other sovereign governments recognize the group. Because of this, new states could not become part of the international community or be bound by international law immediately, so recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[7]
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion that happens when some states recognize a new group, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the main people who supported the theory, suggested that it is a state's job to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any set of rules when judging if they should give recognition. Many states may only recognize another state if it will help them.[7]
Declarative theory of statehood
Main page: Montevideo Convention
One of the criteria most commonly used by micronations is the Montevideo Convention. The Montevideo Convention was signed on December 26 1933. The Montevideo Convention has four conditions that a group "should" meet to become a state:Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
- a population that lives there
- a set piece of land
- a government
- the ability to enter into relations with other states
Article by: William Worster, Universities of The Hague and Missouri-Kansas City (February 2010)
International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the “constitutive” view.
(COMMENT)Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.A state needs a defined territory.It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember?
Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be acquired ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite.
Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....
Where did Israel get a defined territory?
MY God you are stupid. International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.
Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?
That is what I have been looking for.
I believe that your mistake in understanding is in the layman's oversimplification of the means by which nations, states and empires are developed. And while I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, it is clear to me that you have been infected by some theory which no support.
Most Respectfully,
RObviously, you missed this point several times.
I am not missing the point. I am already familiar with what you post. It is that your posts are not related to me questions.
I thought my questions were simple enough. I don't understand why you have so much problem with them.
So because 5 neighboring countries attacked Israel (???) and lost (???) Israel won land from Palestine?Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.
That is what I have been looking for.
Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.
Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force. Illegal under international law. That's just a fact.
False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.
IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her.
"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."
Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force. That is a fact. And, conquering land through force is illegal. What part of that do you not understand.
The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain. The English Crown chartered colonies in North America. It does not make it legal or right.
When five Arab states attacked Israel, Israel was on the defensive. The land they captured during that war is now part of Israel. It's inside the green line and globally recognized. Israel is also a member of the U.N. Also, the Palestinians recognize that land as being Israel's.The land that Israel declared independence on however was not conquered through force. The Jews practised sovereignty over the land, the SAME WAY THE PALESTINIANS DID OVER THEIR LAND, as I have proved. Declaring independence over land is NOT conquering it. Why can't you understand that ?
