Palestine Today

[Hollie]

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?

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.

Indeed, you are confusing the issue. It was the Treaty of Lausanne that created the “country of Pally’land”, correct?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Those are internationally recognized de facto borders. They are not international borders. Israel does not claim them to be their borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Links to those documents?

 

[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?

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.

Indeed, you are confusing the issue. It was the Treaty of Lausanne that created the “country of Pally’land”, correct?

No, you haven't been following my posts.

 

[Shusha]

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.

Links to those documents?

Seriously? Again? You know what they are. Don't waste our time.

Now, why is it, exactly, that Palestine, of all the places in the world CAN'T be divided?

 

[RoccoR]

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

You just cannot cherry-pick the international interpretations that suit you.

Indeed, and Palestine is a successor state to Turkey.

(REFERENCES)

• UN Press Release on the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

• The legal meaning of the “Termination of the Mandate” Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948

•

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not the successor state to any previous sovereignty.

Most Resepctfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Links to those documents?

Seriously? Again? You know what they are. Don't waste our time.

Now, why is it, exactly, that Palestine, of all the places in the world CAN'T be divided?

You are only confused because you are unfamiliar with international law.

You should read up.

 

[Shusha]

You are only confused because you are unfamiliar with international law.

You should read up.

Nice duck. Sweeties, I run circles around you with international law. (Though Rocco slays it even better than I do.)

Answer my question. Can Palestine be divided, yes or no?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

You just cannot cherry-pick the international interpretations that suit you.

Indeed, and Palestine is a successor state to Turkey.

(REFERENCES)

• UN Press Release on the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

• The legal meaning of the “Termination of the Mandate” Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948

• View attachment 185420

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not the successor state to any previous sovereignty.

View attachment 185420 View attachment 185425

Most Resepctfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are only confused because you are unfamiliar with international law.

You should read up.

Nice duck. Sweeties, I run circles around you with international law. (Though Rocco slays it even better than I do.)

Answer my question. Can Palestine be divided, yes or no?

Not without the approval of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181 so the Security Council did not implement the plan.

 

[RoccoR]

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

We were talking about the dispute.

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.

Those are internationally recognized de facto borders. They are not international borders. Israel does not claim them to be their borders.

(COMMENT)

As has been discussed before, the "international" demarcations are:

• Article 3 - International Boundary The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a)

• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,
​

You will not that the "treaties" outline the "international boundaries."

Eventually, the Arab Palestinians, unless the get some political savy, will eventually an albatrose on the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Not without the approval of the Palestinians.

You mean the Arab Palestinians. And also not without the approval of Israel. That is what a treaty IS -- an agreement of mutual recognition and boundaries of territory, and possibly other negotiated items.

But you admit then, that if both Parties agree there is no legal impediment to territorial division.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

We were talking about the dispute.

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.

Those are internationally recognized de facto borders. They are not international borders. Israel does not claim them to be their borders.

(COMMENT)

As has been discussed before, the "international" demarcations are:

• Article 3 - International Boundary The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a)

• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,
​

You will not that the "treaties" outline the "international boundaries."

Eventually, the Arab Palestinians, unless the get some political savy, will eventually an albatrose on the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course nobody explained how Israel can claim a Palestinian border without a treaty with Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not without the approval of the Palestinians.

You mean the Arab Palestinians. And also not without the approval of Israel. That is what a treaty IS -- an agreement of mutual recognition and boundaries of territory, and possibly other negotiated items.

But you admit then, that if both Parties agree there is no legal impediment to territorial division.

That is true but that treaty would have to conform to international law. The occupation would have to end before a treaty can be made.

 

[Shusha]

That is true but that treaty would have to conform to international law. The occupation would have to end before a treaty can be made.

There is no occupation. There is no external State in play here. Its a civil dispute.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is true but that treaty would have to conform to international law. The occupation would have to end before a treaty can be made.

There is no occupation. there is no external State in play here. Its a civil dispute.

Then why does Rocco claim that the Palestinians violate the territorial rights of Israel.

It looks like you people make stuff up as you go along.

 

[Shusha]

Then why does Rocco claim that the Palestinians violate the territorial rights of Israel.

Where does he say that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then why does Rocco claim that the Palestinians violate the territorial rights of Israel.

Where does he say that?

Oh jeese, he has posted that many times.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is another one of those myths you Arab Palestinians cling to.

You are only confused because you are unfamiliar with the international law.

You should read up.

Nice duck. Sweeties, I run circles around you with international law. (Though Rocco slays it even better than I do.)

Answer my question. Can Palestine be divided, yes or no?

Not without the approval of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181 so the Security Council did not implement the plan.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretations are clearly incorrect concerning A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947.

■ Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181,

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.​

PART - I Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

■ The claim is that the Security Council did not implement the plan.

✪⇒ The implmentation was delegated to UNPC.
✪⇒ Implementation by the UNSC was not a requirement. However, the Resolution afforded the UN Palestine Commission ever latitude and discretion within the limits of the Resolution.​

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.

"that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact, the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." This was a UN Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948 made as a matter of record.

The original plan for the establishment of the Jewish State (Part II Section B) was altered by the outcome of the Arab Invasion.

As you can see, the claims are quite false.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH, don't be foolish.

We were talking about the dispute.

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.

Those are internationally recognized de facto borders. They are not international borders. Israel does not claim them to be their borders.

(COMMENT)

As has been discussed before, the "international" demarcations are:

• Article 3 - International Boundary The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a)

• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,
​

You will note that the "treaties" outline the "international boundaries."

Eventually, the Arab Palestinians, unless they get some political savvy, will eventually an albatross on the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course, nobody explained how Israel can claim a Palestinian border without a treaty with Palestine.

(COMMENT)

1. Israel did not claim a border with the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip.

2. The treaties were to conclude the 1948 War of Independence and to drawn an end to hostilities between the Arab Countries.

3. All the Middle Eastern Arab Countries understood that the Arab Palestinians did not have any form of sovereignty to start with.

Most Respectfully,
R