Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Ahed Tamimi's 15 YO cousin shot in the face.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, you say that if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs. I keep seeing the zionists argue the opposite which is weird.

I will let you look up the term "terra nullis" and then how it applies to the West Bank.

The mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Jordan abandon and Israel was in effective control.

v/r
R

Basically, if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs, yes?

Certainly, if a sovereign abandons a territory, it is "no longer theirs". I'm not convinced that a people, especially an indigenous people, can abandon a territory. Can you give an example? One that does not involve conquest, invasion and colonization?

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, you say that if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs. I keep seeing the zionists argue the opposite which is weird.

I will let you look up the term "terra nullis" and then how it applies to the West Bank.

The mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Jordan abandon and Israel was in effective control.

v/r
R

Basically, if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs, yes?

Certainly, if a sovereign abandons a territory, it is "no longer theirs". I'm not convinced that a people, especially an indigenous people, can abandon a territory. Can you give an example? One that does not involve conquest, invasion and colonization?

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

The Palestinians have been pushing for their rights for a hundred years. Where have the Jews been for the last couple thousand years? Not even the Jews living there mentioned sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ abi, et al,

I will let you look up the term "terra nullis" and then how it applies to the West Bank.

The mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Jordan abandon and Israel was in effective control.

v/r
R

Basically, if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs, yes?

Certainly, if a sovereign abandons a territory, it is "no longer theirs". I'm not convinced that a people, especially an indigenous people, can abandon a territory. Can you give an example? One that does not involve conquest, invasion and colonization?

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

The Palestinians have been pushing for their rights for a hundred years. Where have the Jews been for the last couple thousand years? Not even the Jews living there mentioned sovereignty.

The Arabs in Palestine have been pushing for ALL the rights for a hundred years and denying the identical rights of the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been also pushing for their rights for a hundred years.

Why do you have so much trouble with BOTH?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Basically, if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs, yes?

Certainly, if a sovereign abandons a territory, it is "no longer theirs". I'm not convinced that a people, especially an indigenous people, can abandon a territory. Can you give an example? One that does not involve conquest, invasion and colonization?

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

The Palestinians have been pushing for their rights for a hundred years. Where have the Jews been for the last couple thousand years? Not even the Jews living there mentioned sovereignty.

The Arabs in Palestine have been pushing for ALL the rights for a hundred years and denying the identical rights of the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been also pushing for their rights for a hundred years.

Why do you have so much trouble with BOTH?

I don't. It is the Zionists who want exclusive rights. Remember, it was the Zionists who kicked out 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and continue to today.

 

[rylah]

Ahed Tamimi's 15 YO cousin shot in the face.

I'm not sure it isn't an inner conflict between clans, Did the Tamimis already sue anyone or present any proof?

A clan war in the Bedouin settlement of Aruer
Two wounded gunshots and four wounded from stone-throwing were evacuated from the center of the Bedouin settlement of Aruer in the Negev, which became a battleground after the outbreak of a clan war.


1 DEAD, 6 APARTMENTS BURNED IN J'LEM CLASH OF CLANS
22-year-old man dies in hospital after being stabbed in a conflict between two family clans; six apartments, cars burned in fire.

 

[Hollie]

Certainly, if a sovereign abandons a territory, it is "no longer theirs". I'm not convinced that a people, especially an indigenous people, can abandon a territory. Can you give an example? One that does not involve conquest, invasion and colonization?

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

The Palestinians have been pushing for their rights for a hundred years. Where have the Jews been for the last couple thousand years? Not even the Jews living there mentioned sovereignty.

The Arabs in Palestine have been pushing for ALL the rights for a hundred years and denying the identical rights of the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been also pushing for their rights for a hundred years.

Why do you have so much trouble with BOTH?

I don't. It is the Zionists who want exclusive rights. Remember, it was the Zionists who kicked out 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and continue to today.

That’s really ignorant. There can be no accommodation with an intransigent Death Cult that holds to a charter requiring the Jews be driven into the sea by machinegun fire. The treatment of Jews, Christians, and other non-Moslems under islamist rule was always as inferior to islamism and discrimination, oppression, even mass murders and other atrocities occurred.

Israel's capture in 1967 of Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights was in response to Arab agression. Israel voluntarily returned of all Sinai to Egypt following formal recognition and peace treaty with that nation.

The lesson you have been given is the willingness of Israel to return land for peace with her neighbors. This underlies all treaties and actions (even the unilateral withdrawals from south Lebanon and from Gaza) that followed ftom 1982 to the present day. As was expected, Gaza was quickly transformed into just another Islamic terrorist enclave.

 

[Hollie]

Ahed Tamimi's 15 YO cousin shot in the face.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

 

[P F Tinmore]

14 YO girl released from Israeli prison.

 

[RoccoR]

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

It is NOT about whether or not te Palestinians abandon the territory.

Oh, you say that if a people abandon a territory it is no longer theirs. I keep seeing the zionists argue the opposite which is weird.

Not to mention that the Palestinians have never abandoned their territory.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The term "terra nullius" is talking about sovereign powers. The Palestinians were not a sovereign power.

There are two requirements:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

I never stated that the Palestinians abandon the territory. I stated that the Jordanians abandoned the territory on 31 July 1988 when the King cut all ties.

This is yet just another example of how you alter and twist the discussion.

Sovereignty is not always in the hands of the people. Until 31 July 1988, the sovereign power over the West Bank and Jerusalem was the King of Jordan.

Without regard to your interpretation of "rights," the fact is, the Palestinians --- on 31 July 1988 --- had not territory over which they were sovereign. That was the reality. In fact, it is a question as to whether Palestinians hold sovereignty over anything yet; with the possibe exception of Area "A."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ Tinmore, et al,

No, this is not the case at all. This is not even Customary Law.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 19002154, member: 21837"
Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In an ideal society, this might be accomplished. But in states like the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, and any Arab Kingdom, this would be a fallacy; and maybe even traitorous.

In some Heads of State (the sovereign) has had to form a new governments. This is not unheard of in many cultures.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I never stated that the Palestinians abandon the territory. I stated that the Jordanians abandoned the territory on 31 July 1988 when the King cut all ties.

It was never Jordanian territory. The world rejected Jordan's claim to annex occupied territory which is illegal.

You base your conclusions on false premise. Again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ Tinmore, et al,

No, this is not the case at all. This is not even Customary Law.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 19002154, member: 21837"
Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In an ideal society, this might be accomplished. But in states like the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, and any Arab Kingdom, this would be a fallacy; and maybe even traitorous.

In some Heads of State (the sovereign) has had to form a new governments. This is not unheard of in many cultures.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Nice deflection. We should not determine rights by pointing at the lowest examples.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is foolish.

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

(COMMENT)

What out friend "Tinmore" is trying to describe and apply is a "democracy." Sovereignty is about "supreme power or authority," and the the form of government.

1. A Definition of Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Fri Mar 25, 2016, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists. But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: supreme authority within a territory. This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

This is foolish.

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

(COMMENT)

What out friend "Tinmore" is trying to describe and apply is a "democracy." Sovereignty is about "supreme power or authority," and the the form of government.

1. A Definition of Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Fri Mar 25, 2016, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists. But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: supreme authority within a territory. This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Popular sovereignty is the legal ideal. Unfortunately virtually every country, including the US, is some form of oligarchy.

We need to fight against that accepted norm.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ Tinmore, et al,

Who says, were does it say, that recognition is "required.?"

I never stated that the Palestinians abandon the territory. I stated that the Jordanians abandoned the territory on 31 July 1988 when the King cut all ties.

It was never Jordanian territory. The world rejected Jordan's claim to annex occupied territory which is illegal.

You base your conclusions on false premise. Again.

(COMMENT)

On 24 April 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a Resolution formally annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem.

ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

ARTICLE 6 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

ARTICLE 7 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.
​

Whether or not the world recognizes it, is irrelevant. Recognition does not change the reality. In the time between 1950 and 1988, the people of the West Bank were Jordanian Citizens. And if other nations accepted a Passport of a West Bank Jordanian citizen, taht state would have applied tacit approval.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Certainly, if a sovereign abandons a territory, it is "no longer theirs". I'm not convinced that a people, especially an indigenous people, can abandon a territory. Can you give an example? One that does not involve conquest, invasion and colonization?

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

The Palestinians have been pushing for their rights for a hundred years. Where have the Jews been for the last couple thousand years? Not even the Jews living there mentioned sovereignty.

The Arabs in Palestine have been pushing for ALL the rights for a hundred years and denying the identical rights of the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been also pushing for their rights for a hundred years.

Why do you have so much trouble with BOTH?

I don't. It is the Zionists who want exclusive rights. Remember, it was the Zionists who kicked out 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and continue to today.

And the Arabs kicked out 900,000 Jews.

The Jewish people have always accepted a divided territory. It has been the Arabs who consistently declined.

It's the Arabs who continually demand "end the occupation of 1948".

 

[P F Tinmore]

Now we are getting down to the basics.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty​

If a government relinquishes that sovereignty it reverts back to the people for they are the true sovereigns. Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory. The Palestinians have never relinquished sovereignty over Palestine.

Sure. Let's say I agree with you.

Neither have the Jewish people.

The Palestinians have been pushing for their rights for a hundred years. Where have the Jews been for the last couple thousand years? Not even the Jews living there mentioned sovereignty.

The Arabs in Palestine have been pushing for ALL the rights for a hundred years and denying the identical rights of the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been also pushing for their rights for a hundred years.

Why do you have so much trouble with BOTH?

I don't. It is the Zionists who want exclusive rights. Remember, it was the Zionists who kicked out 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and continue to today.

And the Arabs kicked out 900,000 Jews.

The Jewish people have always accepted a divided territory. It has been the Arabs who consistently declined.

It's the Arabs who continually demand "end the occupation of 1948".

And the Arabs kicked out 900,000 Jews.

Nice deflection. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ Tinmore, et al,

Who says, were does it say, that recognition is "required.?"

I never stated that the Palestinians abandon the territory. I stated that the Jordanians abandoned the territory on 31 July 1988 when the King cut all ties.

It was never Jordanian territory. The world rejected Jordan's claim to annex occupied territory which is illegal.

You base your conclusions on false premise. Again.

(COMMENT)

On 24 April 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a Resolution formally annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem.

ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

ARTICLE 6 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

ARTICLE 7 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.
​

Whether or not the world recognizes it, is irrelevant. Recognition does not change the reality. In the time between 1950 and 1988, the people of the West Bank were Jordanian Citizens. And if other nations accepted a Passport of a West Bank Jordanian citizen, taht state would have applied tacit approval.

Most Respectfully,
R

The rights of a state are within their own territories. The annexation of occupied territory is extra territorial.

 

[Shusha]

And the Arabs kicked out 900,000 Jews.

Nice deflection. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.

Give me a break. The Arab collective was working together at the time. And they certainly had to do with all Jews kicked out of Arab "Palestine".

But speaking of deflection, why don't we deal with today. If you truly believe in BOTH as you claim, why hasn't the territory already been divided? Who is holding that up?