Palestine Today

[Hollie]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

(REFERENCE)

Paragraph 7: No Policy to Fight Terrorism Can Succeed without Addressing Conditions Promoting Its Spread, Secretary-General Tells Security Council Debate
SG/SM/14764-SC/10883
15 January 2013
v/r
R

No mention of Palestine here.

You’re not paying attention.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

If they are not attacking Israel -- then they are attacking Jews. They attack Jews for being present in a space they believe should be Jew-free. Thank you for acknowledging that the violence committed by Arab "Palestinians" is not an attack on Israel -- but just an attack on Jews. We agree.

Why would Jews be in Palestinian Villages and neighborhoods?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is more criminal avoidance in an attempt to suggest a legal defense against criminal acts of which they are guilty.

If, an attack originated from an Occupied Area, but targets another country,

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

(COMMENT)

What territory do the Arab Palestinians "ACTUALLY" have and exercise sovereignty?

✪ If the answer is none, then the Arab Palestinians cannot claim occupation.
✪ If the answer is yes, then there must be some defined area in which the Arab Palestinian is the ultimate authority and perform the duties of a country. Exactly where is that?​

Don't raise that "Boundary Issue" --- because the Arab Palestinian controls nothing. And if they control nothing, then they have no country.

This nonsense of attempting to claim the British defined territory originally covered by the 1922 Palestine Order in Council has no validity what so ever. The Arab Palestinians never had sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Agreed. It is an internal civil war between the Jewish and some Arab "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) and some Arab "Palestinians". Therefore, there is no occupation and all your claims about no self-defense for occupiers is bogus.

This all takes place inside Palestine's international borders so where do you get this crap?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Don't raise that "Boundary Issue" --- because the Arab Palestinian controls nothing. And if they control nothing, then they have no country.

Link.

 

[Shusha]

Why would Jews be in Palestinian Villages and neighborhoods?

Jewish "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) would be in "Palestine" (was and is now again called Israel) for the exact same reason that Arab "Palestinians" are in "Palestine". Its their homeland.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a universal application.

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

(REFERENCE)

Paragraph 7: No Policy to Fight Terrorism Can Succeed without Addressing Conditions Promoting Its Spread, Secretary-General Tells Security Council Debate
SG/SM/14764-SC/10883
15 January 2013
v/r
R

No mention of Palestine here.

(COMMENT)

What? You expect the UN to list every single entity that is involved in organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and grant the use of territory for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens?

We simply say: Thou shall not be a terrorist. It fits on the stone tablets better.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

This all takes place inside Palestine's international borders ...

Yes. Exactly. And there are two groups of "Palestinians" seeking sovereign self-determination within "Palestine's" international borders. That is EXACTLY what makes it an internal civil war. And if its a civil war -- there is no occupation. Just a dispute.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

An international border controlled by the Arab Palestinians?

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Agreed. It is an internal civil war between the Jewish and some Arab "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) and some Arab "Palestinians". Therefore, there is no occupation and all your claims about no self-defense for occupiers is bogus.

This all takes place inside Palestine's international borders so where do you get this crap?

(COMMENT)

Where is that?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

What? You expect the UN to list every single entity that is involved in organizing,

It is expected when Palestine is not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

An international border controlled by the Arab Palestinians?

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Agreed. It is an internal civil war between the Jewish and some Arab "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) and some Arab "Palestinians". Therefore, there is no occupation and all your claims about no self-defense for occupiers is bogus.

This all takes place inside Palestine's international borders so where do you get this crap?

(COMMENT)

Where is that?

Most Respectfully,
R

A country does not cease to exist because it is under military occupation.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. That remains with the people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes. Exactly. And there are two groups of "Palestinians" seeking sovereign self-determination within "Palestine's" international borders.

Indeed, the native Palestinians and foreign settlers.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no connection between theevents concerning the Treaty of Lausanne and today's boundary disputes.

What? You expect the UN to list every single entity that is involved in organizing,

It is expected when Palestine is not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne.

(COMMENT)

Come on, get it together.

v/r
R

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, the native Palestinians and foreign settlers.

Doesn't matter. Still an internal dispute between two groups of people. There is no other State involved. The fact that some members of a particular territory seeking self-determination are immigrants, or their parents were, or their grandparents were. is immaterial to the legal scope of the conflict. It is NOT a conflict between States. It is an internal dispute within international boundaries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no connection between theevents concerning the Treaty of Lausanne and today's boundary disputes.

What? You expect the UN to list every single entity that is involved in organizing,

It is expected when Palestine is not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne.

(COMMENT)

Come on, get it together.

v/r
R

What boundary dispute?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, the native Palestinians and foreign settlers.

Doesn't matter. Still an internal dispute between two groups of people. There is no other State involved. The fact that some members of a particular territory seeking self-determination are immigrants, or their parents were, or their grandparents were. is immaterial to the legal scope of the conflict. It is NOT a conflict between States. It is an internal dispute within international boundaries.

It is an internal dispute within international boundaries.

Glad you finally recognized that.

Whose international boundaries?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of this is correct.

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

An international border controlled by the Arab Palestinians?

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Agreed. It is an internal civil war between the Jewish and some Arab "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) and some Arab "Palestinians". Therefore, there is no occupation and all your claims about no self-defense for occupiers is bogus.

This all takes place inside Palestine's international borders so where do you get this crap?

(COMMENT)

Where is that?

Most Respectfully,
R

A country does not cease to exist because it is under military occupation.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. That remains with the people.

(COMMENT)

There is a standing argument to be made that "the official creation of the country took place at the San Remo Peace Conference where the Balfour Declaration was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers as the basis for the future administration of Palestine which would henceforth be recognized as the Jewish National Home."

Your interpretation of "sovereignty" in the context of geo-political disputes is off-center.

ψ Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.[3] It has a positive and a negative aspect.[4] The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of this is correct.

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

An international border controlled by the Arab Palestinians?

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Agreed. It is an internal civil war between the Jewish and some Arab "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) and some Arab "Palestinians". Therefore, there is no occupation and all your claims about no self-defense for occupiers is bogus.

This all takes place inside Palestine's international borders so where do you get this crap?

(COMMENT)

Where is that?

Most Respectfully,
R

A country does not cease to exist because it is under military occupation.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. That remains with the people.

(COMMENT)

There is a standing argument to be made that "the official creation of the country took place at the San Remo Peace Conference where the Balfour Declaration was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers as the basis for the future administration of Palestine which would henceforth be recognized as the Jewish National Home."

Your interpretation of "sovereignty" in the context of geo-political disputes is off-center.

ψ Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.[3] It has a positive and a negative aspect.[4] The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States."

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, and Palestine is a successor state to Turkey.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is yet another attempt to thro in a bit of chaos.

What boundary dispute?

(COMMENT)

Because there is no unified voice or true leadership among the Arab Palestinians, it is hard to tell you who's in charge.

Since the PLO is still the sole representative then the dispute is defined as:

• Key Facts
• International Law
• Our Position

The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Whose international boundaries?

The only people with a recognized, established sovereignty AND full legal title to the territory, according to treaties and other legal instruments, is the Jewish people. The answer to your question, then, is ISRAEL. If you have to choose -- Israel has the better claim.

However, one is not compelled to choose. It isn't a zero sum game. There are two competing peoples vying for territory and self-determination in that territory. One has LONG established the criteria for Statehood and has been recognized as such. The other is still working on it. Everyone recognizes that the territory is in dispute between these two people.

The question for you, AGAIN, is why the territory can not be divided -- the same as the Ottoman Empire, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Korea, and dozens of others States which came about through a dissolution process of an existing territorial boundary into smaller territories.

Either you deny that this process is legal or you are playing special rules for Jews. Which is it?