Images from Palestine

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Well, this has been a "minor question" (both legal and political) for more than a century. And in determining the solution to this geopolitical issue, is how it comes to be applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

• See: Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

∆ Declaratory theory of state
∆ Constitutive theory of state
​

It is not as clear, cut'n'dry as many would have you believe.

I think the OP must mean either pictures from Gaza, Jordan or Israel, because there is no palestine.

Its as if I declared a state smack in the middle of Canada somewhere and managed to fool some percentage of people into recognizing it, but Canada didn't.

Would there be a state ?

A state must control its own borders, for that matter have borders. This imaginary palestine doesn't. No borders, no state. No functional government, no state. No effective control of any given land area, no state.

Only Gaza Israel and Jordan qualifies as a state within the mandated area under any measure of the term. Ergo the OP must be mistaken ;--)

(SUB QUESTION: Would there be a state ?)

Given no further information, what you described is called the Acquisition of Sovereignty by "(4) Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803."
​

However, usually, the parent sovereignty of the territory (in your example case Canada) would use force (paramilitary and police) to reestablish law and order under the supreme law in Canada, The Constitution.

Quebec has voted twice against independence,
but the question has never been settled or gone away.
​

(COMMENT)

The 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (AKA: The Montevideo Convention) very specifically states that: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is an example of Declarative Sovereignty. This is much like saying: I am independent and sovereign, therefore I am independent and sovereign. This has not happened much in history; there is usually some blood spilt over territorial control.

In point of fact, political science merely uses these to theories to describe the Acquisition of Sovereignty; but neither theory of recognition satisfactorily describes contemporary and present day practice. Just saying I am a state, does not confer the reality of being a state. The "All Palestine Government" said it was a state, and defined its permanent population, territory, and nature of the provisional government. BUT it never attained the capacity to enter into relations with the other states simply because it was not recognized. That was the significance of Mahmoud Abbas signing treaties, to demonstrate its ability to enter into relations with other states. There is a serious question as to whether the November 1988 State of Palestine ever achieved real independence or ever became sovereign. Many people believe that in reality, the State of Palestine is illusionary; that the Government of Mahmoud Abbas is actually a dysfunctional de jure (legitimate or lawful); but is not what it actual implies --- legally elected, and so recognized by other states. In fact, some Palestinians themselves argue that the Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas does not represent the legally elected government. And thus, if true, then the treaties signed by him are not really valid. But, whether or not Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas is actually the de jure government --- is NOT the question posed internationally. Mahmoud Abbas is recognized as the President of the Quasi-Republic for the State of Palestine. There is no one we can point to that holds the real reigns of power and control as the de facto power. Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity. Thus, just because HAMAS was never in effective control of the 1988 State of Palestine after the 2006 Elections, does not mean that HAMAS is not the real government. The answer is still ambiguous.

• Which government is recognized as the de jure Government of the State of Palestine?
​

What impact does the answer have?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, it is truly arduous trying to read your posts. It is like trying to dribble a football. You bounce around all over the place.

You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932.

Then there is: Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity.

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

And the end of each assertation are the words

None of these three points is valid.



He falls into the trap as you by relying on flawed evidence. Any state/nation of the last 200 years has had a currency, a capital city, a government figurehead and a border control. Show just one of these for the state of Palestine prior to 1988, and not your usual British Palestine offerings

Or even after 1988, its a sham all the way. There is no state of palestine. We have Gaza, Israel and Jordan. The three state solution

 

[Phoenall]

Boston1, et al,

Well, this has been a "minor question" (both legal and political) for more than a century. And in determining the solution to this geopolitical issue, is how it comes to be applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

• See: Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

∆ Declaratory theory of state
∆ Constitutive theory of state
​

It is not as clear, cut'n'dry as many would have you believe.

I think the OP must mean either pictures from Gaza, Jordan or Israel, because there is no palestine.

Its as if I declared a state smack in the middle of Canada somewhere and managed to fool some percentage of people into recognizing it, but Canada didn't.

Would there be a state ?

A state must control its own borders, for that matter have borders. This imaginary palestine doesn't. No borders, no state. No functional government, no state. No effective control of any given land area, no state.

Only Gaza Israel and Jordan qualifies as a state within the mandated area under any measure of the term. Ergo the OP must be mistaken ;--)

(SUB QUESTION: Would there be a state ?)

Given no further information, what you described is called the Acquisition of Sovereignty by "(4) Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803."
​

However, usually, the parent sovereignty of the territory (in your example case Canada) would use force (paramilitary and police) to reestablish law and order under the supreme law in Canada, The Constitution.

Quebec has voted twice against independence,
but the question has never been settled or gone away.
​

(COMMENT)

The 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (AKA: The Montevideo Convention) very specifically states that: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is an example of Declarative Sovereignty. This is much like saying: I am independent and sovereign, therefore I am independent and sovereign. This has not happened much in history; there is usually some blood spilt over territorial control.

In point of fact, political science merely uses these to theories to describe the Acquisition of Sovereignty; but neither theory of recognition satisfactorily describes contemporary and present day practice. Just saying I am a state, does not confer the reality of being a state. The "All Palestine Government" said it was a state, and defined its permanent population, territory, and nature of the provisional government. BUT it never attained the capacity to enter into relations with the other states simply because it was not recognized. That was the significance of Mahmoud Abbas signing treaties, to demonstrate its ability to enter into relations with other states. There is a serious question as to whether the November 1988 State of Palestine ever achieved real independence or ever became sovereign. Many people believe that in reality, the State of Palestine is illusionary; that the Government of Mahmoud Abbas is actually a dysfunctional de jure (legitimate or lawful); but is not what it actual implies --- legally elected, and so recognized by other states. In fact, some Palestinians themselves argue that the Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas does not represent the legally elected government. And thus, if true, then the treaties signed by him are not really valid. But, whether or not Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas is actually the de jure government --- is NOT the question posed internationally. Mahmoud Abbas is recognized as the President of the Quasi-Republic for the State of Palestine. There is no one we can point to that holds the real reigns of power and control as the de facto power. Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity. Thus, just because HAMAS was never in effective control of the 1988 State of Palestine after the 2006 Elections, does not mean that HAMAS is not the real government. The answer is still ambiguous.

• Which government is recognized as the de jure Government of the State of Palestine?
​

What impact does the answer have?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, it is truly arduous trying to read your posts. It is like trying to dribble a football. You bounce around all over the place.

You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932.

Then there is: Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity.

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

Well, this has been a "minor question" (both legal and political) for more than a century. And in determining the solution to this geopolitical issue, is how it comes to be applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

• See: Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster

∆ Declaratory theory of state
∆ Constitutive theory of state
​

It is not as clear, cut'n'dry as many would have you believe.

(SUB QUESTION: Would there be a state ?)

Given no further information, what you described is called the Acquisition of Sovereignty by "(4) Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803."
​

However, usually, the parent sovereignty of the territory (in your example case Canada) would use force (paramilitary and police) to reestablish law and order under the supreme law in Canada, The Constitution.

Quebec has voted twice against independence,
but the question has never been settled or gone away.
​

(COMMENT)

The 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (AKA: The Montevideo Convention) very specifically states that: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is an example of Declarative Sovereignty. This is much like saying: I am independent and sovereign, therefore I am independent and sovereign. This has not happened much in history; there is usually some blood spilt over territorial control.

In point of fact, political science merely uses these to theories to describe the Acquisition of Sovereignty; but neither theory of recognition satisfactorily describes contemporary and present day practice. Just saying I am a state, does not confer the reality of being a state. The "All Palestine Government" said it was a state, and defined its permanent population, territory, and nature of the provisional government. BUT it never attained the capacity to enter into relations with the other states simply because it was not recognized. That was the significance of Mahmoud Abbas signing treaties, to demonstrate its ability to enter into relations with other states. There is a serious question as to whether the November 1988 State of Palestine ever achieved real independence or ever became sovereign. Many people believe that in reality, the State of Palestine is illusionary; that the Government of Mahmoud Abbas is actually a dysfunctional de jure (legitimate or lawful); but is not what it actual implies --- legally elected, and so recognized by other states. In fact, some Palestinians themselves argue that the Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas does not represent the legally elected government. And thus, if true, then the treaties signed by him are not really valid. But, whether or not Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas is actually the de jure government --- is NOT the question posed internationally. Mahmoud Abbas is recognized as the President of the Quasi-Republic for the State of Palestine. There is no one we can point to that holds the real reigns of power and control as the de facto power. Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity. Thus, just because HAMAS was never in effective control of the 1988 State of Palestine after the 2006 Elections, does not mean that HAMAS is not the real government. The answer is still ambiguous.

• Which government is recognized as the de jure Government of the State of Palestine?
​

What impact does the answer have?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, it is truly arduous trying to read your posts. It is like trying to dribble a football. You bounce around all over the place.

You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932.

Then there is: Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity.

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

 

[Phoenall]

Rocco, it is truly arduous trying to read your posts. It is like trying to dribble a football. You bounce around all over the place.

You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932.

Then there is: Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity.

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

The proof that shows that the 6 day war was started by Egypt when it illegally closed the straits to Israeli shipping. The U.S. president at the time denounced it as an act of war, he then told the US ambassador to the UN to repeat his words in the chamber. This made it clear that the UN saw the closing of the straits as a declaration of war. The one fact that team Palestine cant get round with LIES and propaganda as it is in the official archives. If monte claims it is fake then point out that this means all of his links are also fakes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco, it is truly arduous trying to read your posts. It is like trying to dribble a football. You bounce around all over the place.

You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932.

Then there is: Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity.

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

 

[Boston1]

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

I seldom respond to your posts. I'm sorry but they don't often make much sense. You seem confused much of the time and seldom are responding on topic anyway.

For instance

Did your post in any way address the issue of images from Gaza ? Or did it blither on about some imaginary state ? Which has nothing to do with our topic at hand.

 

[Phoenall]

LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?

This aught to be good ;--)

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85

http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

I seldom respond to your posts. I'm sorry but they don't often make much sense. You seem confused much of the time and seldom are responding on topic anyway.

For instance

Did your post in any way address the issue of images from Gaza ? Or did it blither on about some imaginary state ? Which has nothing to do with our topic at hand.

You asked a question. I answered it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's try to be just a little bit objective.

You are trying to confuse people. In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine. After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine. This was held true up to May 1948.

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

(COMMENT)

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.

I find it amusing that you would say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.

For instance

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPpZe88YbMAhWHuIMKHdp3BLIQFggcMAA&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=auilr&usg=AFQjCNGQNVdKlk6gfsH-g91V3M4sHB2TqA&sig2=9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,

3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs

proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9

Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'

End Quote

Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be

Quote

Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.

End Quote

There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too

Not according to Lyndon B Johnson who stated that the closing of the straits to Israeli traffic was an act of war. This was repeated in the UN meeting held at the time and is why the UN did nothing

?

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

I seldom respond to your posts. I'm sorry but they don't often make much sense. You seem confused much of the time and seldom are responding on topic anyway.

For instance

Did your post in any way address the issue of images from Gaza ? Or did it blither on about some imaginary state ? Which has nothing to do with our topic at hand.

You asked a question. I answered it.

This is a great example of the confusion you seem to have over whats going on

You claim I asked a question and you answered it. But this is what you said

Quote

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post
End Quote

And your previous was this

Quote

Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid.

End Quote

You didn't pose a question, you made a statement which I challenged, and then you claimed I hadn't answered your question.

Which has nothing to do with our topic. I was just correcting your view with a few facts. However I did try and bring the topic back on track which is required.

So again how does any of that have anything to do with images from Gaza ?

Because those images often show the destruction the Arab Muslims in Gaza heap on themselves when they are dumb enough to take pot shots at Israeli civilians

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's try to be just a little bit objective.

You are trying to confuse people. In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine. After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine. This was held true up to May 1948.

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

(COMMENT)

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.

I find it amusing that you would say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.

View attachment 70963​

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.​

I don't You are the one who brings that up.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I got the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was a Palestinian State, recognized for Arab Palestinians in 1932. Is that not what you were implying?

"And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's try to be just a little bit objective.

You are trying to confuse people. In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine. After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine. This was held true up to May 1948.

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

(COMMENT)

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.

I find it amusing that you would say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.

View attachment 70963​

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.​

I don't You are the one who brings that up.

(COMMENT)

You are confused again. One more time!!!

"You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925."

Cession: When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title --- transferring Allied Specified territory, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allies, to the Allied Powers, --- this is called acquisition by cession. It takes place in favour of such later state, the Allied Powers. "The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war and the ensuing Treaty of Peace."
See: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
See: The Acquisition of Title to Territory

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's try to be just a little bit objective.

You are trying to confuse people. In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine. After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine. This was held true up to May 1948.

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

(COMMENT)

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.

I find it amusing that you would say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.

View attachment 70963​

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.​

I don't You are the one who brings that up.

WRONG you regurgitate the same mess every time and then claim that the answers don't come close to your questions. You have a lot of trouble understanding anything that goes against your POV

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I got the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was a Palestinian State, recognized for Arab Palestinians in 1932. Is that not what you were implying?

"And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's try to be just a little bit objective.

You are trying to confuse people. In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine. After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine. This was held true up to May 1948.

Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.

(COMMENT)

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.

I find it amusing that you would say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.

View attachment 70963​

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.​

I don't You are the one who brings that up.

(COMMENT)

You are confused again. One more time!!!

"You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925."

Cession: When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title --- transferring Allied Specified territory, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allies, to the Allied Powers, --- this is called acquisition by cession. It takes place in favour of such later state, the Allied Powers. "The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war and the ensuing Treaty of Peace."
See: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
See: The Acquisition of Title to Territory

Most Respectfully,
R

Reply here: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Kondor3]

Sad and Criminal acts committed.

Time for the so-called and 'invented' Palestinians to wise up, pack up, and leave.

They can't win.

There is no longer any Arab cavalry riding over the hill to rescue them.

They only hold a few non-contiguous, disjointed slivers of land, which, bundled together, still don't amount to anything remotely resembling a sustainable nation-state.

Most of their own Muslim-Arab neighbors have given up on them and merely offer lip service with respect to aid, having gotten their own asses kicked by Israel time and again.

Many of their Muslim-Arab neighbors have themselves fallen apart or come close to falling apart as nation-states and are no longer in any sort of position to aid the Palestinians.

They shot themselves in the foot by resorting to terrorism abroad in the world during the 1970s and 1980s, losing much of the sympathy that they might once have hoped for.

They're broke... they continue to stupidly poke at the Israeli bear with a stick... their vicious political masters use them for cannon fodder... they've lost, and just can't admit it.

Well... they'd better come 'round, and face the facts... they've lost... with zero hope of reversing their rapidly dwindling fortunes... time to regain a bit of sanity, and give up.

Any Pali with an ounce of brains and two cents to rub together is going to get his family out of that shit-hole, to give them a chance at life, and happiness, elsewhere.

Time for the Pals to give themselves a future... by giving up, walking away, scattering to the Four Winds, and embracing Life for once, rather than Death, someplace else.

 

[Preacher]

Sad and Criminal acts committed.

Time for the so-called and 'invented' Palestinians to wise up, pack up, and leave.

They can't win.

There is no longer any Arab cavalry riding over the hill to rescue them.

They only hold a few non-contiguous, disjointed slivers of land, which, bundled together, still don't amount to anything remotely resembling a sustainable nation-state.

Most of their own Muslim-Arab neighbors have given up on them and merely offer lip service with respect to aid, having gotten their own asses kicked by Israel time and again.

Many of their Muslim-Arab neighbors have themselves fallen apart or come close to falling apart as nation-states and are no longer in any sort of position to aid the Palestinians.

They shot themselves in the foot by resorting to terrorism abroad in the world during the 1970s and 1980s, losing much of the sympathy that they might once have hoped for.

They're broke... they continue to stupidly poke at the Israeli bear with a stick... their vicious political masters use them for cannon fodder... they've lost, and just can't admit it.

Well... they'd better come 'round, and face the facts... they've lost... with zero hope of reversing their rapidly dwindling fortunes... time to regain a bit of sanity, and give up.

Any Pali with an ounce of brains and two cents to rub together is going to get his family out of that shit-hole, to give them a chance at life, and happiness, elsewhere.

Time for the Pals to give themselves a future... by giving up, walking away, scattering to the Four Winds, and embracing Life for once, rather than Death, someplace else.

One sentence was enough to realize it was a waste of my time to read that crap. They will never give up. Why would you EVER give up trying to defeat your mortal enemy? They have used genocide to try and wipe your people off the face of the earth and you should just give up!? Hell no.

 

[Kondor3]

Sad and Criminal acts committed.

Time for the so-called and 'invented' Palestinians to wise up, pack up, and leave.

They can't win.

There is no longer any Arab cavalry riding over the hill to rescue them.

They only hold a few non-contiguous, disjointed slivers of land, which, bundled together, still don't amount to anything remotely resembling a sustainable nation-state.

Most of their own Muslim-Arab neighbors have given up on them and merely offer lip service with respect to aid, having gotten their own asses kicked by Israel time and again.

Many of their Muslim-Arab neighbors have themselves fallen apart or come close to falling apart as nation-states and are no longer in any sort of position to aid the Palestinians.

They shot themselves in the foot by resorting to terrorism abroad in the world during the 1970s and 1980s, losing much of the sympathy that they might once have hoped for.

They're broke... they continue to stupidly poke at the Israeli bear with a stick... their vicious political masters use them for cannon fodder... they've lost, and just can't admit it.

Well... they'd better come 'round, and face the facts... they've lost... with zero hope of reversing their rapidly dwindling fortunes... time to regain a bit of sanity, and give up.

Any Pali with an ounce of brains and two cents to rub together is going to get his family out of that shit-hole, to give them a chance at life, and happiness, elsewhere.

Time for the Pals to give themselves a future... by giving up, walking away, scattering to the Four Winds, and embracing Life for once, rather than Death, someplace else.

One sentence was enough to realize it was a waste of my time to read that crap. They will never give up. Why would you EVER give up trying to defeat your mortal enemy? They have used genocide to try and wipe your people off the face of the earth and you should just give up!? Hell no.

Their choice... Life or Death... so far, they have chosen Death... no need for that... they cannot win... they have no land left... it's over... time for them to go.

 

[Preacher]

Sad and Criminal acts committed.

Time for the so-called and 'invented' Palestinians to wise up, pack up, and leave.

They can't win.

There is no longer any Arab cavalry riding over the hill to rescue them.

They only hold a few non-contiguous, disjointed slivers of land, which, bundled together, still don't amount to anything remotely resembling a sustainable nation-state.

Most of their own Muslim-Arab neighbors have given up on them and merely offer lip service with respect to aid, having gotten their own asses kicked by Israel time and again.

Many of their Muslim-Arab neighbors have themselves fallen apart or come close to falling apart as nation-states and are no longer in any sort of position to aid the Palestinians.

They shot themselves in the foot by resorting to terrorism abroad in the world during the 1970s and 1980s, losing much of the sympathy that they might once have hoped for.

They're broke... they continue to stupidly poke at the Israeli bear with a stick... their vicious political masters use them for cannon fodder... they've lost, and just can't admit it.

Well... they'd better come 'round, and face the facts... they've lost... with zero hope of reversing their rapidly dwindling fortunes... time to regain a bit of sanity, and give up.

Any Pali with an ounce of brains and two cents to rub together is going to get his family out of that shit-hole, to give them a chance at life, and happiness, elsewhere.

Time for the Pals to give themselves a future... by giving up, walking away, scattering to the Four Winds, and embracing Life for once, rather than Death, someplace else.

One sentence was enough to realize it was a waste of my time to read that crap. They will never give up. Why would you EVER give up trying to defeat your mortal enemy? They have used genocide to try and wipe your people off the face of the earth and you should just give up!? Hell no.

Their choice... Life or Death... so far, they have chosen Death... no need for that... they cannot win... they have no land left... it's over... time for them to go.

They haven't chosen a damn thing. Their land was stolen and they have been slaughtered for 70 years. Time will come when the welfare leach state of Israel will be kicked off the tit and forced to fend for its self.

 

[Boston1]

Sad and Criminal acts committed.

Time for the so-called and 'invented' Palestinians to wise up, pack up, and leave.

They can't win.

There is no longer any Arab cavalry riding over the hill to rescue them.

They only hold a few non-contiguous, disjointed slivers of land, which, bundled together, still don't amount to anything remotely resembling a sustainable nation-state.

Most of their own Muslim-Arab neighbors have given up on them and merely offer lip service with respect to aid, having gotten their own asses kicked by Israel time and again.

Many of their Muslim-Arab neighbors have themselves fallen apart or come close to falling apart as nation-states and are no longer in any sort of position to aid the Palestinians.

They shot themselves in the foot by resorting to terrorism abroad in the world during the 1970s and 1980s, losing much of the sympathy that they might once have hoped for.

They're broke... they continue to stupidly poke at the Israeli bear with a stick... their vicious political masters use them for cannon fodder... they've lost, and just can't admit it.

Well... they'd better come 'round, and face the facts... they've lost... with zero hope of reversing their rapidly dwindling fortunes... time to regain a bit of sanity, and give up.

Any Pali with an ounce of brains and two cents to rub together is going to get his family out of that shit-hole, to give them a chance at life, and happiness, elsewhere.

Time for the Pals to give themselves a future... by giving up, walking away, scattering to the Four Winds, and embracing Life for once, rather than Death, someplace else.

One sentence was enough to realize it was a waste of my time to read that crap. They will never give up. Why would you EVER give up trying to defeat your mortal enemy? They have used genocide to try and wipe your people off the face of the earth and you should just give up!? Hell no.

Their choice... Life or Death... so far, they have chosen Death... no need for that... they cannot win... they have no land left... it's over... time for them to go.

They haven't chosen a damn thing. Their land was stolen and they have been slaughtered for 70 years. Time will come when the welfare leach state of Israel will be kicked off the tit and forced to fend for its self.

Your funny

What makes you think it was ever their land. As I recall it was the Ottomans who ceded the land to the LoN who turned it over to the mandate.

The mandate clearly made everything west of the Jordan available for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland.

Oh and Israel receives about 4 billion in military credits of which 75% must be used to purchase US military equipment. Also of the Israeli military budget of about 70 billion fully half gets spent on US arms.

The US is roughly 31 billion a year ahead on its arrangements with Israel

Maybe you'd care to explain to us how the Arab Muslims in Israel financially benefit the US ;--)

 

[montelatici]

It was always the land of those that inhabited the land, the Muslims, the Christian and Jewish Arabs. Not European Zionists.