Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I think that the terminology you are using is an improper form of the true meaning of the Customary Law. There are 7 concepts that are associated with the State Acquisition of territory and the extension of sovereignty.

◈ Discovery (now archaic - all global territory has been discovered)
◈ Occupation
◈ Prescription
◈ Cession
◈ Annexation
◈ Assimilation
◈ Conquest​

While "war" [(by Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) ⟴ conflict • International (IAC) or non-International (NIAC)] may have had a causal connection to the outcome, it is not the true action that extends the sovereignty. It is the improper expression of the intent behind:

Article 2(4), Chapter I • Purposes and Principles, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Principles

✦ One state cannot use the Threat of Force:

○ To coerce and gain control over the territorial integrity of another state.
○ To usurp the political independence of any state.
​

✦ One state cannot Use Force:

○ The to gain control over the territorial integrity of another state through an act of aggression.
○ The to usurp the political independence of any state through an act of aggression.​

This notion that the phrase "through war" (technically words of description) is somehow the proper consideration for this topic is → poor literary license for a much deeper meaning in the Customary Law. The Territory of one state → which becomes under the influence effectively controlled by another state as an outcome of a defense against aggression is not addressed. Nor is the acquistion of territory by treaty (for any reason) is not addressed.

Was the land obtained through war?

(COMMENT)

In contemporary times (since the beginning of the 20th Century) continued and unbroken "occupation of territory" by another state is known as "acquisition by prescription." This is going to be the emerging controversy in the Regional Conflict over Palestine (formerly the territory once under Mandate).

It must be remembered that the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip never actually maintained secured Sovereignty. The limited sovereignty the Arab Palestinians have been an outcome of either (in the case of the Gaza Strip) abandonment, or Area "A" (in the case of the West Bank) International Agreement.

Well yes and no. Nobody has surrendered yet so nobody has won anything yet.

(COMMENT)


Another one of the emerging considerations, of the late 20th Century or early 21st Century, is that the
Common Article 2, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV)(1949) states that:

◈ The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

◈ The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance".​

The notion that one side or the other has to "surrender" in order for something to be "won" or "lost" is similarly just as archaic as the notion of "war." It seems to be convenience for the Arab Palestinian to rest their arguments on these archaic notions, as it places their argument under the umbrella of legitimacy. But the appearance of legitimacy is a false mask We all know that Newtonian Mathematics is actually incorrect; we've known this since the time of Albert Einstein and Relativity. But we still teach and use Newtonian because it is, for all intent an purpose, a very close approximation to the reality of Einstein's Relativity. These political-military notions of "war," "surrender," (Wins-Losses) and the indefinite perpetuation of Arab Palestinian conflict (Jihadism, Insurgency, Radicalized Islamic Fundamentalism, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Warfare) are an attempt to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the establishment of a Jewish National Home. This is the negative effect → over a century → of the Arab Palestinian theory → in the adoption of conflict over peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ Discovery (now archaic - all global territory has been discovered)
◈ Occupation
◈ Prescription
◈ Cession
◈ Annexation
◈ Assimilation
◈ Conquest

You keep giving this list. Which one was it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Principles
✦ One state cannot use the Threat of Force:
○ To coerce and gain control over the territorial integrity of another state.
○ To usurp the political independence of any state.
✦ One state cannot Use Force:
○ The to gain control over the territorial integrity of another state through an act of aggression.
○ The to usurp the political independence of any state through an act of aggression.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

You keep saying that the Palestinians are the aggressors but it appears that it is Israel that is the aggressor.

 

[ding]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I think that the terminology you are using is an improper form of the true meaning of the Customary Law. There are 7 concepts that are associated with the State Acquisition of territory and the extension of sovereignty.

◈ Discovery (now archaic - all global territory has been discovered)
◈ Occupation
◈ Prescription
◈ Cession
◈ Annexation
◈ Assimilation
◈ Conquest​

While "war" [(by Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) ⟴ conflict • International (IAC) or non-International (NIAC)] may have had a causal connection to the outcome, it is not the true action that extends the sovereignty. It is the improper expression of the intent behind:

Article 2(4), Chapter I • Purposes and Principles, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Principles

✦ One state cannot use the Threat of Force:

○ To coerce and gain control over the territorial integrity of another state.
○ To usurp the political independence of any state.
​

✦ One state cannot Use Force:

○ The to gain control over the territorial integrity of another state through an act of aggression.
○ The to usurp the political independence of any state through an act of aggression.​

This notion that the phrase "through war" (technically words of description) is somehow the proper consideration for this topic is → poor literary license for a much deeper meaning in the Customary Law. The Territory of one state → which becomes under the influence effectively controlled by another state as an outcome of a defense against aggression is not addressed. Nor is the acquistion of territory by treaty (for any reason) is not addressed.

Was the land obtained through war?

(COMMENT)

In contemporary times (since the beginning of the 20th Century) continued and unbroken "occupation of territory" by another state is known as "acquisition by prescription." This is going to be the emerging controversy in the Regional Conflict over Palestine (formerly the territory once under Mandate).

It must be remembered that the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip never actually maintained secured Sovereignty. The limited sovereignty the Arab Palestinians have been an outcome of either (in the case of the Gaza Strip) abandonment, or Area "A" (in the case of the West Bank) International Agreement.

Well yes and no. Nobody has surrendered yet so nobody has won anything yet.

(COMMENT)


Another one of the emerging considerations, of the late 20th Century or early 21st Century, is that the
Common Article 2, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV)(1949) states that:

◈ The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

◈ The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance".​

The notion that one side or the other has to "surrender" in order for something to be "won" or "lost" is similarly just as archaic as the notion of "war." It seems to be convenience for the Arab Palestinian to rest their arguments on these archaic notions, as it places their argument under the umbrella of legitimacy. But the appearance of legitimacy is a false mask We all know that Newtonian Mathematics is actually incorrect; we've known this since the time of Albert Einstein and Relativity. But we still teach and use Newtonian because it is, for all intent an purpose, a very close approximation to the reality of Einstein's Relativity. These political-military notions of "war," "surrender," (Wins-Losses) and the indefinite perpetuation of Arab Palestinian conflict (Jihadism, Insurgency, Radicalized Islamic Fundamentalism, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Warfare) are an attempt to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the establishment of a Jewish National Home. This is the negative effect → over a century → of the Arab Palestinian theory → in the adoption of conflict over peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

The land wasn’t acquired through war so you can stop that nonsense.

And annexation doesn’t fit either because annexation implies an existing sovereign entity. So it can’t be that either.

Is stolen on the list?

Or purchased? Oops can’t be purchased either, right?

 

[ding]

So is it possible that Israel’s claim that Israel is making a claim based on a land grant from God because Hollie believes that is a fairy tale.

 

[Hollie]

The Principles
✦ One state cannot use the Threat of Force:
○ To coerce and gain control over the territorial integrity of another state.
○ To usurp the political independence of any state.
✦ One state cannot Use Force:
○ The to gain control over the territorial integrity of another state through an act of aggression.
○ The to usurp the political independence of any state through an act of aggression.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

You keep saying that the Palestinians are the aggressors but it appears that it is Israel that is the aggressor.

I'm curious as to what group you would suggest is attempting to crash the Israeli border to "rip the hearts out" of the Jewish people.

It's a softball. Take a swing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Principles
✦ One state cannot use the Threat of Force:
○ To coerce and gain control over the territorial integrity of another state.
○ To usurp the political independence of any state.
✦ One state cannot Use Force:
○ The to gain control over the territorial integrity of another state through an act of aggression.
○ The to usurp the political independence of any state through an act of aggression.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

You keep saying that the Palestinians are the aggressors but it appears that it is Israel that is the aggressor.

I'm curious as to what group you would suggest is attempting to crash the Israeli border to "rip the hearts out" of the Jewish people.

It's a softball. Take a swing.

False question. There is no border there.

 

[Hollie]

The Principles
✦ One state cannot use the Threat of Force:
○ To coerce and gain control over the territorial integrity of another state.
○ To usurp the political independence of any state.
✦ One state cannot Use Force:
○ The to gain control over the territorial integrity of another state through an act of aggression.
○ The to usurp the political independence of any state through an act of aggression.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

You keep saying that the Palestinians are the aggressors but it appears that it is Israel that is the aggressor.

I'm curious as to what group you would suggest is attempting to crash the Israeli border to "rip the hearts out" of the Jewish people.

It's a softball. Take a swing.

False question. There is no border there.

That was your expected retreat / sidestep.

However, the facts are that Israel is defending its sovereign territory and the fact is that islamic terrorist sponsored and promoted riots and attacks are taking place by islamics stating they will breach the border and "tear the hearts out" of Jews.

If any of the above is incorrect, I'm sure will dump a YouTube video in the thread as opposed to actually presenting a coherent argument.