Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

Yes, in some respects the two situations are similar situations. But that is of a more shallow perspective rather than that of a focused eye. Arab Palestinians and Israelis, over generations, have lost the ability and to building mutual respect and understanding between them. And thus, the outside observer see that each holds the other at fault for every confrontational event (of any sort) no matter the topic (commercial, political, spiritual, intellectual and cultural) of the dispute, and no matter the level of mortality. Each holds the other to blame for every unintended consequence.

We are working with a double standard here. Israeli supporters are shut down after they start to speak. Palestinian supporters are shut down before they start to speak. That requires two different processes. Why should one be OK and the other not?

(COMMENT)

In understanding this, the exchange between the two (Arab Palestinians and Israelis) has not improved over the years. The feuding sprinkled with sparse periods of peace and freedom has been continuous since the Armistice of 1949.

Each side has a distinct culture which openly and publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy. Each sees the other as an imminent danger to their sovereignty and culture.

The Arab Palestinians, for one reason or another, has chosen to indefinitely extend the conflict by asking for the impossible. And the Israelis are not about to exchange their sovereignty for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Yes, in some respects the two situations are similar situations. But that is of a more shallow perspective rather than that of a focused eye. Arab Palestinians and Israelis, over generations, have lost the ability and to building mutual respect and understanding between them. And thus, the outside observer see that each holds the other at fault for every confrontational event (of any sort) no matter the topic (commercial, political, spiritual, intellectual and cultural) of the dispute, and no matter the level of mortality. Each holds the other to blame for every unintended consequence.

We are working with a double standard here. Israeli supporters are shut down after they start to speak. Palestinian supporters are shut down before they start to speak. That requires two different processes. Why should one be OK and the other not?

(COMMENT)

In understanding this, the exchange between the two (Arab Palestinians and Israelis) has not improved over the years. The feuding sprinkled with sparse periods of peace and freedom has been continuous since the Armistice of 1949.

Each side has a distinct culture which openly and publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy. Each sees the other as an imminent danger to their sovereignty and culture.

The Arab Palestinians, for one reason or another, has chosen to indefinitely extend the conflict by asking for the impossible. And the Israelis are not about to exchange their sovereignty for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

You don't understand the problem.



What treaty or agreement can resolve this problem?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Oh, this is so sad. The boundary is the establishment of sovereignty. In theory, it will always be there and nations will always have the right to defend it.

BY THE WAY: The Video is not in "Context."
It intentionally misrepresented the facts. It opening tells it like there was no "just cause."

You don't understand the problem.
What treaty or agreement can resolve this problem?

(COMMENT)

Treaties do not fix these types of problems in perception and trust. Only people can. The treaty just records the details of the new relationship. The trust placed in the bound words spoken (the handshake) between culture has meaning. That is why when the treaty is broken or arbitrarily abandon by one of the parties - their word (promises) becomes hollow.

None of the treaties the Arab Palestinians have signed onto have any real meaning because they have no reasonable expectation of being upheld by the Palestinian Authority or any other arm of government. Certainly, the Arab Palestinians do not follow the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, the Arab Palestinian State claims to be encased by the 1967 Borders. 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.

The border of the State of Palestine could not be defined "before" the 1967 War, because the State of Palestine did not exist until November 1988. And that is only true if you agree that the PLO Declaration of Independence was valid. And if you think the 1988 Declaration of Independence by the PLO was valid, then you know that nowhere in the Middle East (including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem) did the PLO hold any sovereignty. In fact, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (into the hands of the Israelis) four-months BEFORE the PLO made the declaration. So technically, the only country having a valid claim would be Israel.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

• Disengagement from the West Bank •
"Finally, on July 31 (1988) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."
​

So we must be very very careful when we are dealing with the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

None of the treaties the Arab Palestinians have signed onto have any real meaning because they have no reasonable expectation of being upheld by the Palestinian Authority or any other arm of government.

The "Palestinian Authority" made agreements contrary to the wishes of the people.

 

[Hollie]

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

You forgot the part that announces the Islamist gee-had is exempt from the above.

 

[P F Tinmore]

BY THE WAY: The Video is not in "Context."
It intentionally misrepresented the facts. It opening tells it like there was no "just cause."

What do you mean?

 

[Hollie]

BY THE WAY: The Video is not in "Context."
It intentionally misrepresented the facts. It opening tells it like there was no "just cause."

What do you mean?

You will allow your ignorance to be a reason to spam the thread, right?

 

[USAF 2023]

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

You forgot the part that announces the Islamist gee-had is exempt from the above.

Israel's right to Jerusalem established firmly in int'l law, expert says | The Jerusalem post

Israel will ALWAYS keep Jerusalem, They were denied their rights by Jordan and will never be denied again, Remember ' NEVER AGAIN!!!!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Green Party urges Int'l Criminal Court to probe Israel's war on Palestinians

The Green Party has endorsed a letter to the International Criminal Court (ICC) that was drafted by the party's Peace Action Committee. The letter, which is appended below, outlines the history of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and requests that alleged war crimes by Israel that have been reported since June 2014 be investigated by the ICC.

The ICC opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine on January 16, 2015.

Green Party urges Int'l Criminal Court to probe Israel's war on Palestinians

 

[rylah]

Green Party urges Int'l Criminal Court to probe Israel's war on Palestinians

The Green Party has endorsed a letter to the International Criminal Court (ICC) that was drafted by the party's Peace Action Committee. The letter, which is appended below, outlines the history of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and requests that alleged war crimes by Israel that have been reported since June 2014 be investigated by the ICC.

The ICC opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine on January 16, 2015.

Green Party urges Int'l Criminal Court to probe Israel's war on Palestinians

Since when do signatures have any power to force an outcome of a court probe?
Especially with that kind of hate speech in their letter.

I think this is an exemplary case of cynical attempt at using the ICC for the spread of their vile bigotry.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Role of Christians in the Struggle for Justice in Palestine

The occupation of Palestine is often erroneously portrayed as a conflict between the Jewish and Muslim faiths. This narrative obscures the fact that Zionism is a settler-colonialist movement inspired by 19th century European anti-Semitism, which was shunned by many Jews in the past and continues to be shunned today. What’s more, instead of addressing the ongoing issues of inequality, injustice and apartheid within a rational, political realm (thus making these issues resolvable), it resorts to an ahistorical portrayal of an age-old and violent, irrational conflict. Finally, it ignores a sizable and influential Christian Palestinian population that is part-and-parcel to Palestinian history, heritage and culture.

The Role of Christians in the Struggle for Justice in Palestine

 

[rylah]

The Role of Christians in the Struggle for Justice in Palestine

The occupation of Palestine is often erroneously portrayed as a conflict between the Jewish and Muslim faiths. This narrative obscures the fact that Zionism is a settler-colonialist movement inspired by 19th century European anti-Semitism, which was shunned by many Jews in the past and continues to be shunned today. What’s more, instead of addressing the ongoing issues of inequality, injustice and apartheid within a rational, political realm (thus making these issues resolvable), it resorts to an ahistorical portrayal of an age-old and violent, irrational conflict. Finally, it ignores a sizable and influential Christian Palestinian population that is part-and-parcel to Palestinian history, heritage and culture.

The Role of Christians in the Struggle for Justice in Palestine

Actually modern Zionism was initiated as a response to an Arab Christian blood libel against Jews in Syria-Palestine.The blood libel resulted in a wave of murderous anti-Jewish pogroms across the Ottoman empire. Interestingly these pogroms also triggered the first international political Jewish organization, resulting in the state of Israel - as a defense mechanism against this bigotry.

Read about the Damascus Affair

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)

More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)
View attachment 217012
More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

View attachment 217012

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker. Jordan did not abandon any territory. The West Bank was never theirs. It was occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)
View attachment 217012
More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

View attachment 217012

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker. Jordan did not abandon any territory. The West Bank was never theirs. It was occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

A lie, . The W. Bank and E. Jerusalem were officially considered part of Jordan.

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

Of course there will be nothing to say; there never is. Gaza was OFFICIALLY considered part of Egypt , The Israelis were supposed to have access to their Holy Sites as per the UNITED NATIONS that Pro Palestinian Kool-Aid Drinkers like to always refer to but were denied. If anything they were set on the destruction of anything suggesting that suggested the Jewish people were ever there. Kool-Aid drinkers who believe in " religious freedom" see nothing wrong with that either. That is why Israel will NEVER give it up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)
View attachment 217012
More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

View attachment 217012

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker. Jordan did not abandon any territory. The West Bank was never theirs. It was occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

A lie, . The W. Bank and E. Jerusalem were officially considered part of Jordan.

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

Of course there will be nothing to say; there never is. Gaza was OFFICIALLY considered part of Egypt , The Israelis were supposed to have access to their Holy Sites as per the UNITED NATIONS that Pro Palestinian Kool-Aid Drinkers like to always refer to but were denied. If anything they were set on the destruction of anything suggesting that suggested the Jewish people were ever there. Kool-Aid drinkers who believe in " religious freedom" see nothing wrong with that either. That is why Israel will NEVER give it up.

09999
From your link:

The annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by the international community.[4] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants

 

[Hollie]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)
View attachment 217012
More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

View attachment 217012

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker. Jordan did not abandon any territory. The West Bank was never theirs. It was occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Actually, it was not, and is not, occupied “Pal’istan” territory.

The Ottoman Turks released all rights and title to land area that included the geographic area called Palestine. There was never an independent, sovereign entity of “Palestine”. Contrary to your misrepresentation and ignorance of the facts, there was never a “country of Pal’istan”.

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)
View attachment 217012
More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

View attachment 217012

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker. Jordan did not abandon any territory. The West Bank was never theirs. It was occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

A lie, . The W. Bank and E. Jerusalem were officially considered part of Jordan.

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

Of course there will be nothing to say; there never is. Gaza was OFFICIALLY considered part of Egypt , The Israelis were supposed to have access to their Holy Sites as per the UNITED NATIONS that Pro Palestinian Kool-Aid Drinkers like to always refer to but were denied. If anything they were set on the destruction of anything suggesting that suggested the Jewish people were ever there. Kool-Aid drinkers who believe in " religious freedom" see nothing wrong with that either. That is why Israel will NEVER give it up.

09999
From your link:

The annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by the international community.[4] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants

Yes, but from my link it was FORMALLY recognized as part of Jordan. What the post doesn’t say but it’s obviously understood is that there was no outcry about “ International Law” or “ Occupation “
You also have nothing to say about Jordan not adhering to the Armistice Agreement and refusing to allow Israelis into E. Jerusalem to have access to their Holy Sites and Destroying Israel’s Religious Sites, digging into graves making them latrines, etc. etc. If Israel had any Historic Muslim Religious Sites or Burial Grounds inside the Borders we hear so much about and they did it you would be Hysterical demanding another “ investigation “claiming the Israelis have no Tolerance for Religious Freedom. I don’t expect anything else from a Pro Palestinian

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Well that is not strickly accurate.

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control.

You forgot this part.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

(COMMENT)

That bit (must be peaceful,) is not a written requirement established in international law for territiry abandon by the state formerly in control or under the authority of another state. You will not find a single treaty. convention, or law.

The peace takeover (without the use of military force) only applied to an aggressor nation. Customarily the notion that it "must" be a peaceful take-over does not apply in the circumstances where the "defender" is in hot pursuit of opposing forces, and takes-up territory overrun in the pursuit.

In fact, there may in point of fact, be no law concerning this. It certainly was not applied to the Chinese in the military takeover of Philippine Islands in the South China Sea. Nor was Customary Law (or tribunal) apply to the forcible acquisition of most of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

(CUSTOMARY LAW)
View attachment 217012
More often than not, the types of disputes never make it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of the Arab Palestinian Conflict (depending on how you look at it) the dispute is either 70 years old - or - 50 years old. The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the State of Palestine keeps using the 1949 Armistice Lines as a reference demarcation. That makes the dispute closer to 70 years old than it does 50.

SOURCE: by GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship

View attachment 217012

Then, there is the issue of time. The duration of the time and the lapse of time in a serious attempt at peace. How long can the Arab Palestinians drag-out the conflict and be taken seriously if they cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire with (in perspective) only retaliates against Arab Palestinian assaults? (RHETORICAL)

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker. Jordan did not abandon any territory. The West Bank was never theirs. It was occupied Palestinian territory. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Actually, it was not, and is not, occupied “Pal’istan” territory.

The Ottoman Turks released all rights and title to land area that included the geographic area called Palestine. There was never an independent, sovereign entity of “Palestine”. Contrary to your misrepresentation and ignorance of the facts, there was never a “country of Pal’istan”.

There was a “ territory “ but not a Country