Israel races to head off UN settlement 'blacklist'

[P F Tinmore]

Let's try this. Tel Aviv. Settlement or not settlement?

When was that territory ceded to Israel?

link?

 

[Shusha]

Let's try this. Tel Aviv. Settlement or not settlement?

When was that territory ceded to Israel?

link?

Well, I already knew YOU think that all places where Jews live are 'settlements'. At least you are honest enough to admit it.

 

[Shusha]

A treaty is void if it calls for or allows violations of the people's rights.

Do you have a link for that?

What rights are violated by the Oslo Accords?

 

[fanger]

Your map was drawn in 2005 by eli hertz, it says so on the right hand side

 

[Shusha]

Your map was drawn in 2005 by eli hertz, it says so on the right hand side

Don't be silly. Its a map drawn based on the legal boundaries described in the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[fanger]

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

A treaty is void if it calls for or allows violations of the people's rights.

Do you have a link for that?

What rights are violated by the Oslo Accords?

Treaties must follow international law. Any violations void that treaty. Let's say that Germany and Spain sign a treaty saying that they have a mutual border in the middle of France.

Valid treaty?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel races to head off UN settlement 'blacklist'
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

To answer the question as asked; NO!

There are a number of ways that a treaty, that is in conflict with either internal or international law my cause a treaty to be vacated, terminated, declared in valid, or suspended. The situation you describe here would make the Treaty "invalid" if FRANCE was sovereign and independent. A number of conflicts arise which we could cite individually, but the in principle the treaty on the issue of borders, would be in contravention with Article 71 (Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty which conflicts
with a peremptory norm of general international law), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

A treaty is void if it calls for or allows violations of the people's rights.

Do you have a link for that?

What rights are violated by the Oslo Accords?

Treaties must follow international law. Any violations void that treaty. Let's say that Germany and Spain sign a treaty saying that they have a mutual border in the middle of France.

Valid treaty?

(COMMENT)

The France is sovereign. The example does not apply to the Question of Palestine.

There is no border that the West Bank can point to that is within its sovereign control.
The OSLO Accords are valid. PLO Signed. There are no Palestinian Rights violated in the OSLO Accords. (International witnesses on the scene.)
PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
UNGA Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question. of Palestine in plenary meetings. A/RES/3210 (XXIX)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

A treaty is void if it calls for or allows violations of the people's rights.

Do you have a link for that?

What rights are violated by the Oslo Accords?

Treaties must follow international law. Any violations void that treaty. Let's say that Germany and Spain sign a treaty saying that they have a mutual border in the middle of France.

Valid treaty?

Treaties create international law. If you are trying to argue that treaties can't be made which encroach upon a third party's sovereignty we agree.

But there is no third party sovereignty here. The Oslo Accords were made in good faith between the two parties to the internal civil conflict -- Israel and the respresentatives of the Arab Palestinian people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel races to head off UN settlement 'blacklist'
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

To answer the question as asked; NO!

There are a number of ways that a treaty, that is in conflict with either internal or international law my cause a treaty to be vacated, terminated, declared in valid, or suspended. The situation you describe here would make the Treaty "invalid" if FRANCE was sovereign and independent. A number of conflicts arise which we could cite individually, but the in principle the treaty on the issue of borders, would be in contravention with Article 71 (Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty which conflicts
with a peremptory norm of general international law), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

A treaty is void if it calls for or allows violations of the people's rights.

Do you have a link for that?

What rights are violated by the Oslo Accords?

Treaties must follow international law. Any violations void that treaty. Let's say that Germany and Spain sign a treaty saying that they have a mutual border in the middle of France.

Valid treaty?

(COMMENT)

The France is sovereign. The example does not apply to the Question of Palestine.

There is no border that the West Bank can point to that is within its sovereign control.
The OSLO Accords are valid. PLO Signed. There are no Palestinian Rights violated in the OSLO Accords. (International witnesses on the scene.)
PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
UNGA Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question. of Palestine in plenary meetings. A/RES/3210 (XXIX)

Most Respectfully,
R

Here again you are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty continues to be in the hands of the people. Occupations merely violate that right to sovereignty.

 

[abi]

Here again you are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty continues to be in the hands of the people. Occupations merely violate that right to sovereignty.

I grew bored of reading his stuff. Did he actually argue that? Does he not know what a settlement is either?

 

[rylah]

RE: Israel races to head off UN settlement 'blacklist'
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

To answer the question as asked; NO!

There are a number of ways that a treaty, that is in conflict with either internal or international law my cause a treaty to be vacated, terminated, declared in valid, or suspended. The situation you describe here would make the Treaty "invalid" if FRANCE was sovereign and independent. A number of conflicts arise which we could cite individually, but the in principle the treaty on the issue of borders, would be in contravention with Article 71 (Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty which conflicts
with a peremptory norm of general international law), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

A treaty is void if it calls for or allows violations of the people's rights.

Do you have a link for that?

What rights are violated by the Oslo Accords?

Treaties must follow international law. Any violations void that treaty. Let's say that Germany and Spain sign a treaty saying that they have a mutual border in the middle of France.

Valid treaty?

(COMMENT)

The France is sovereign. The example does not apply to the Question of Palestine.

There is no border that the West Bank can point to that is within its sovereign control.
The OSLO Accords are valid. PLO Signed. There are no Palestinian Rights violated in the OSLO Accords. (International witnesses on the scene.)
PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
UNGA Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question. of Palestine in plenary meetings. A/RES/3210 (XXIX)

Most Respectfully,
R

Here again you are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty continues to be in the hands of the people. Occupations merely violate that right to sovereignty.

This is strange,
it seems that You consider only Arabs to be "people".

When did Jews loose their right to sovereignty over the land?

 

[fanger]

Your map was drawn in 2005 by eli hertz, it says so on the right hand side

Don't be silly. Its a map drawn based on the legal boundaries described in the Mandate for Palestine.

Drawn by Eli Hertz in 2005, it says so in the bottom right hand corner

 

[Shusha]

Here again you are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty continues to be in the hands of the people. Occupations merely violate that right to sovereignty.

Here again you are confusing some abstract right of a people as actual sovereignty. The rights of the people TO sovereignty is not in question here. We all agree that the Arab Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty.

The Arab Palestinian people ACTED upon that right to sovereignty through their representatives by negotiating and signing the Oslo Accords. The Accords are proof of their right to sovereignty. Even proof of their ACTUAL sovereignty.

No one's rights were violated.

 

[abi]

We all agree that the Arab Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty.

Oh, really? I have seen zionists on this board call for ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people.

No one's rights were violated.

And you claim to be knowledgeable on these issues?

Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories 2016/2017

Israel/Palestine

Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

 

[Shusha]

Try to keep up, abi

We are discussing a specific issue here -- the Oslo Accords. The Accords themselves violate no ones rights.

 

[Shusha]

Though I guess I appreciate you pointing out, via the second article, the severe and criminal violations of the Israeli peoples right to life in the form of the 2015 wave of stabbing attacks.

 

[abi]

Try to keep up, abi

We are discussing a specific issue here -- the Oslo Accords. The Accords themselves violate no ones rights.

If that is your way of admitting to the decades of human rights abuses that the Palestinians have been subjected to at the hands of the zionists, I'll take it.

 

[abi]

Though I guess I appreciate you pointing out, via the second article, the severe and criminal violations of the Israeli peoples right to life in the form of the 2015 wave of stabbing attacks.

That is the difference with us. I have no problem seeing it for what it is. Unlike you, I am on the side of peace and until Palestine is free, there will be no peace and none of us will be free.

You can quote me.

 

[rylah]

Though I guess I appreciate you pointing out, via the second article, the severe and criminal violations of the Israeli peoples right to life in the form of the 2015 wave of stabbing attacks.

That is the difference with us. I have no problem seeing it for what it is. Unlike you, I am on the side of peace and until Palestine is free, there will be no peace and none of us will be free.

You can quote me.

"Palestine is free" - is quiet a vague term.
To say that none of us will be free, demands explaining from the Palestinian side.

How about starting to explain why there's 0..... none blacklisting of any nation other than Israel?