Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

The acquisition of "territory" through the application of "occupation and prescription" is the terminology that describes a sovereignty transfer and title through the "occupation" over a significant (prolonged) period of time.

In this case, in which nearly everyone calls it the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), even in the international courts. The oPt has been occupied by the Israelis for half a century.

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

(COMMENT)

Annexation only implies the assimilation of the territory from one status (even if it is undetermined) to another. Such a change is usually in the direction of incorporation into new sovereignty.

Is stolen on the list?

(COMMENT)

No, but "Agreement" is. Sovereignty is not stolen. One country either abandons the sovereignty, or fights for it and forfeits the territory.

"Stolen" is a civil tort issue over property, or an enforceable criminal law.

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

(COMMENT)

Yes, "Purchase" is an alternative means. Like the Purchase of Alaska from Russia; or the Louisiana Purchase.
"Cession" (surrender of territory by one country to another.) is another alternative means.

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

(COMMENT)

✪ A/RES/37/43 (3 December 1982) is NOT law. It cannot encourage or imply that it is lawful to attack civilians (Israeli/Jews/otherwise) in any capacity and for any reason. Further, A/RES/37/43 came six years before the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278). In 1982, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1988 while it was under the effective control of Israel. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

The issue of Aggression in 1948 and 1967 is now and has been resolved since before the turn of the century. The parties to the conflicts, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have been rendered by Treaty and "International Boundaries" established.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either conflict.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis were NOT the aggressor because they were not engaged with the Arab Palestinian. Israel was engaged in a conflict with Egypt and Jordan... Israel currently has a Treaty (of Peace) with both Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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.

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.

What sovereign territory? Got a map?

 

[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.

What sovereign territory? Got a map?

So, we can agree that your claim "Israel is the aggressors", is clearly false.

Your Islamist terrorist heroes have discovered where Israel maintains its soverign territory. Ask them to show you where that location is.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This just dodges the question. It tries to mask Arab Palestinian aggression with some sort of requirement that Israel gets their approval for the border.

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.

(COMMENT)

No matter what rationale the Arab Palestinian uses, they are attempting to deny reality. The border is a "fact." It is not an apparition, it is not a legal abstract, it is not a political theory.

Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933:
◈ ARTICLE 1a defined territory;​

The defined territory is a physical reality...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

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

This just dodges the question. It tries to mask Arab Palestinian aggression with some sort of requirement that Israel gets their approval for the border.

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.

(COMMENT)

No matter what rationale the Arab Palestinian uses, they are attempting to deny reality. The border is a "fact." It is not an apparition, it is not a legal abstract, it is not a political theory.

Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933:
◈ ARTICLE 1a defined territory;​

The defined territory is a physical reality...

Most Respectfully,
R

Your link(s) spell it out, Rocco.

In PF Tinmore's mindset of complete denial, he does himself a disservice by ignoring a reality while actively maintaining an untenable position for the Arabs-Moslems.

 

[Shusha]

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.

The idea that Israel (read: the Jewish people) is "aggressor" is incorrect and demonizing. Israel is no more an aggressor than Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan are aggressors. The rights of the peoples of all of these places is not based on aggression. You brought it up yourself. The sovereignty on ALL of these peoples stems from the principle of self-determination. That is a basic principle of international law -- that peoples have the right to self-determination, including sovereignty over territory.

The legal means by which sovereignty was transferred in all of these cases was CESSION (abandonment). Turkey abandoned the territory it held (treaty). Jordan and Egypt abandoned the territories they held (treaty). Israel abandoned Area A (unilateral disengagement and treaty) and Gaza (unilateral disengagement and treaty).

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

This entire line of questioning Israel's legitimacy is ridiculous.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The acquisition of "territory" through the application of "occupation and prescription" is the terminology that describes a sovereignty transfer and title through the "occupation" over a significant (prolonged) period of time.

In this case, in which nearly everyone calls it the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), even in the international courts. The oPt has been occupied by the Israelis for half a century.

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

(COMMENT)

Annexation only implies the assimilation of the territory from one status (even if it is undetermined) to another. Such a change is usually in the direction of incorporation into new sovereignty.

Is stolen on the list?

(COMMENT)

No, but "Agreement" is. Sovereignty is not stolen. One country either abandons the sovereignty, or fights for it and forfeits the territory.

"Stolen" is a civil tort issue over property, or an enforceable criminal law.

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

(COMMENT)

Yes, "Purchase" is an alternative means. Like the Purchase of Alaska from Russia; or the Louisiana Purchase.
"Cession" (surrender of territory by one country to another.) is another alternative means.

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

(COMMENT)

✪ A/RES/37/43 (3 December 1982) is NOT law. It cannot encourage or imply that it is lawful to attack civilians (Israeli/Jews/otherwise) in any capacity and for any reason. Further, A/RES/37/43 came six years before the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278). In 1982, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1988 while it was under the effective control of Israel.

The issue of Aggression in 1948 and 1967 is now and has been resolved since before the turn of the century. The parties to the conflicts, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have been rendered by Treaty and "International Boundaries" established.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either conflict.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis were NOT the aggressor because they were not engaged with the Arab Palestinian. Israel was engaged in a conflict with Egypt and Jordan... Israel currently has a Treaty (of Peace) with both Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nov

24

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?


Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are

(1) Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements
(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.

(5) Prescription: It means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. Requirements of prescription (i) the possession must be peaceful (b) the possession must be public (iii) the possession must be for a long period of time.

International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

 

[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.

The idea that Israel (read: the Jewish people) is "aggressor" is incorrect and demonizing. Israel is no more an aggressor than Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan are aggressors. The rights of the peoples of all of these places is not based on aggression. You brought it up yourself. The sovereignty on ALL of these peoples stems from the principle of self-determination. That is a basic principle of international law -- that peoples have the right to self-determination, including sovereignty over territory.

The legal means by which sovereignty was transferred in all of these cases was CESSION (abandonment). Turkey abandoned the territory it held (treaty). Jordan and Egypt abandoned the territories they held (treaty). Israel abandoned Area A (unilateral disengagement and treaty) and Gaza (unilateral disengagement and treaty).

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

This entire line of questioning Israel's legitimacy is ridiculous.

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

Links?

 

[Shusha]

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.

The idea that Israel (read: the Jewish people) is "aggressor" is incorrect and demonizing. Israel is no more an aggressor than Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan are aggressors. The rights of the peoples of all of these places is not based on aggression. You brought it up yourself. The sovereignty on ALL of these peoples stems from the principle of self-determination. That is a basic principle of international law -- that peoples have the right to self-determination, including sovereignty over territory.

The legal means by which sovereignty was transferred in all of these cases was CESSION (abandonment). Turkey abandoned the territory it held (treaty). Jordan and Egypt abandoned the territories they held (treaty). Israel abandoned Area A (unilateral disengagement and treaty) and Gaza (unilateral disengagement and treaty).

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

This entire line of questioning Israel's legitimacy is ridiculous.

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

Links?

I'm not going to enable your denial of plain reality.

If you want to argue against the principle of self-determination, go ahead. If you want to try to prove that treaties don't exist, go ahead. If you want to claim Israel has no actual control of territory, go ahead.

 

[Hollie]

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

The acquisition of "territory" through the application of "occupation and prescription" is the terminology that describes a sovereignty transfer and title through the "occupation" over a significant (prolonged) period of time.

In this case, in which nearly everyone calls it the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), even in the international courts. The oPt has been occupied by the Israelis for half a century.

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

(COMMENT)

Annexation only implies the assimilation of the territory from one status (even if it is undetermined) to another. Such a change is usually in the direction of incorporation into new sovereignty.

Is stolen on the list?

(COMMENT)

No, but "Agreement" is. Sovereignty is not stolen. One country either abandons the sovereignty, or fights for it and forfeits the territory.

"Stolen" is a civil tort issue over property, or an enforceable criminal law.

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

(COMMENT)

Yes, "Purchase" is an alternative means. Like the Purchase of Alaska from Russia; or the Louisiana Purchase.
"Cession" (surrender of territory by one country to another.) is another alternative means.

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

(COMMENT)

✪ A/RES/37/43 (3 December 1982) is NOT law. It cannot encourage or imply that it is lawful to attack civilians (Israeli/Jews/otherwise) in any capacity and for any reason. Further, A/RES/37/43 came six years before the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278). In 1982, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1988 while it was under the effective control of Israel.

The issue of Aggression in 1948 and 1967 is now and has been resolved since before the turn of the century. The parties to the conflicts, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have been rendered by Treaty and "International Boundaries" established.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either conflict.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis were NOT the aggressor because they were not engaged with the Arab Palestinian. Israel was engaged in a conflict with Egypt and Jordan... Israel currently has a Treaty (of Peace) with both Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nov

24

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?


Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are

(1) Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements
(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.

(5) Prescription: It means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. Requirements of prescription (i) the possession must be peaceful (b) the possession must be public (iii) the possession must be for a long period of time.

International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

That’s nice that you link to someone’s personal blog but the facts remain that Israel is defending territory that it maintains sovereignty over.

Your hope for Arabs- Moslems to attempt to steal land is not going to happen.

 

[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.

The idea that Israel (read: the Jewish people) is "aggressor" is incorrect and demonizing. Israel is no more an aggressor than Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan are aggressors. The rights of the peoples of all of these places is not based on aggression. You brought it up yourself. The sovereignty on ALL of these peoples stems from the principle of self-determination. That is a basic principle of international law -- that peoples have the right to self-determination, including sovereignty over territory.

The legal means by which sovereignty was transferred in all of these cases was CESSION (abandonment). Turkey abandoned the territory it held (treaty). Jordan and Egypt abandoned the territories they held (treaty). Israel abandoned Area A (unilateral disengagement and treaty) and Gaza (unilateral disengagement and treaty).

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

This entire line of questioning Israel's legitimacy is ridiculous.

There is NO QUESTION in law that Israel has: 1. The right to self-determination and sovereignty for the Jewish people in principle. 2. The legal right to specific territory by treaty. 3. The actual fact of sovereignty by fulfilling the requirements for sovereignty and actually controlling territory.

Links?

I'm not going to enable your denial of plain reality.

If you want to argue against the principle of self-determination, go ahead. If you want to try to prove that treaties don't exist, go ahead. If you want to claim Israel has no actual control of territory, go ahead.

Nice duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[ding]

Israel is the occupier. They have no valid claim to the land.

The occupiers don’t have to be aggressors because they can be defenders.

Being a defender doe not mean the occupation is legal or just.

Being friends with the police who look the other way as did happen in America with blacks did not make it legal. God has a different standard.

 

[ding]

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

The acquisition of "territory" through the application of "occupation and prescription" is the terminology that describes a sovereignty transfer and title through the "occupation" over a significant (prolonged) period of time.

In this case, in which nearly everyone calls it the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), even in the international courts. The oPt has been occupied by the Israelis for half a century.

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

(COMMENT)

Annexation only implies the assimilation of the territory from one status (even if it is undetermined) to another. Such a change is usually in the direction of incorporation into new sovereignty.

Is stolen on the list?

(COMMENT)

No, but "Agreement" is. Sovereignty is not stolen. One country either abandons the sovereignty, or fights for it and forfeits the territory.

"Stolen" is a civil tort issue over property, or an enforceable criminal law.

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

(COMMENT)

Yes, "Purchase" is an alternative means. Like the Purchase of Alaska from Russia; or the Louisiana Purchase.
"Cession" (surrender of territory by one country to another.) is another alternative means.

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

(COMMENT)

✪ A/RES/37/43 (3 December 1982) is NOT law. It cannot encourage or imply that it is lawful to attack civilians (Israeli/Jews/otherwise) in any capacity and for any reason. Further, A/RES/37/43 came six years before the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278). In 1982, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1988 while it was under the effective control of Israel.

The issue of Aggression in 1948 and 1967 is now and has been resolved since before the turn of the century. The parties to the conflicts, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have been rendered by Treaty and "International Boundaries" established.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either conflict.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis were NOT the aggressor because they were not engaged with the Arab Palestinian. Israel was engaged in a conflict with Egypt and Jordan... Israel currently has a Treaty (of Peace) with both Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nov

24

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?


Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are

(1) Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements
(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.

(5) Prescription: It means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. Requirements of prescription (i) the possession must be peaceful (b) the possession must be public (iii) the possession must be for a long period of time.

International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

That’s nice that you link to someone’s personal blog but the facts remain that Israel is defending territory that it maintains sovereignty over.

Your hope for Arabs- Moslems to attempt to steal land is not going to happen.

No. They have no valid claim. You said it yourself that gods are fairytales.

What is their valid claim?

 

[ding]

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

The acquisition of "territory" through the application of "occupation and prescription" is the terminology that describes a sovereignty transfer and title through the "occupation" over a significant (prolonged) period of time.

In this case, in which nearly everyone calls it the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), even in the international courts. The oPt has been occupied by the Israelis for half a century.

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

(COMMENT)

Annexation only implies the assimilation of the territory from one status (even if it is undetermined) to another. Such a change is usually in the direction of incorporation into new sovereignty.

Is stolen on the list?

(COMMENT)

No, but "Agreement" is. Sovereignty is not stolen. One country either abandons the sovereignty, or fights for it and forfeits the territory.

"Stolen" is a civil tort issue over property, or an enforceable criminal law.

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

(COMMENT)

Yes, "Purchase" is an alternative means. Like the Purchase of Alaska from Russia; or the Louisiana Purchase.
"Cession" (surrender of territory by one country to another.) is another alternative means.

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

(COMMENT)

✪ A/RES/37/43 (3 December 1982) is NOT law. It cannot encourage or imply that it is lawful to attack civilians (Israeli/Jews/otherwise) in any capacity and for any reason. Further, A/RES/37/43 came six years before the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278). In 1982, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1988 while it was under the effective control of Israel.

The issue of Aggression in 1948 and 1967 is now and has been resolved since before the turn of the century. The parties to the conflicts, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have been rendered by Treaty and "International Boundaries" established.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either conflict.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis were NOT the aggressor because they were not engaged with the Arab Palestinian. Israel was engaged in a conflict with Egypt and Jordan... Israel currently has a Treaty (of Peace) with both Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nov

24

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?


Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are

(1) Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements
(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.

(5) Prescription: It means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. Requirements of prescription (i) the possession must be peaceful (b) the possession must be public (iii) the possession must be for a long period of time.

International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

That’s nice that you link to someone’s personal blog but the facts remain that Israel is defending territory that it maintains sovereignty over.

Your hope for Arabs- Moslems to attempt to steal land is not going to happen.

A criminal who occupies my house doesn’t have sovereignty.

He just has friends in the police department.

 

[ding]

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

The acquisition of "territory" through the application of "occupation and prescription" is the terminology that describes a sovereignty transfer and title through the "occupation" over a significant (prolonged) period of time.

In this case, in which nearly everyone calls it the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), even in the international courts. The oPt has been occupied by the Israelis for half a century.

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

(COMMENT)

Annexation only implies the assimilation of the territory from one status (even if it is undetermined) to another. Such a change is usually in the direction of incorporation into new sovereignty.

Is stolen on the list?

(COMMENT)

No, but "Agreement" is. Sovereignty is not stolen. One country either abandons the sovereignty, or fights for it and forfeits the territory.

"Stolen" is a civil tort issue over property, or an enforceable criminal law.

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

(COMMENT)

Yes, "Purchase" is an alternative means. Like the Purchase of Alaska from Russia; or the Louisiana Purchase.
"Cession" (surrender of territory by one country to another.) is another alternative means.

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

(COMMENT)

✪ A/RES/37/43 (3 December 1982) is NOT law. It cannot encourage or imply that it is lawful to attack civilians (Israeli/Jews/otherwise) in any capacity and for any reason. Further, A/RES/37/43 came six years before the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278). In 1982, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1988 while it was under the effective control of Israel.

The issue of Aggression in 1948 and 1967 is now and has been resolved since before the turn of the century. The parties to the conflicts, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have been rendered by Treaty and "International Boundaries" established.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either conflict.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, as it applied to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis were NOT the aggressor because they were not engaged with the Arab Palestinian. Israel was engaged in a conflict with Egypt and Jordan... Israel currently has a Treaty (of Peace) with both Egypt and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

So basically what you are saying is that if you steal something and can hold onto long enough because the officials look the other way you can legally own it?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, et al,

Let's try this just: One - More - Time!
Just a refresher here. See if you can follow this...

​

So basically what you are saying is that if you steal something and can hold onto long enough because the officials look the other way you can legally own it?

(KEY FACTORS)

In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem...

• Treaty of Alliance between HM in respect of the UK and HH the Amir of Trans-Jordan, 22 March 1946 •

​

• Unification of the Two Banks

◈ On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: History Website: kinghussein.gov → Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
​

• Disengagement from the West Bank •

◈ On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.
​

• Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933 •

◈ ARTICLE 3

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.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

(COMMENT)

Prior to the Annexation of the West Bank by Jordanian parliament in which of the MPs were Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (this would be by the Right of independence and Sovereignty). the Government of Palestine (the UK) maintained effective control by Mandate. In 1950 the King of Jordan incorporated the West Bank into the greater Sovereignty of Jordan. In 1967, the State of Israel, in pursuit of retreating Jordanian military forces, assume effective control of the West Bank. This made the West Bank Jordanian territory under Israeli occupation. On 31 July 1988, The Kingdom of Jordan cut all administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, leaving the West Bank in the hands of Israel without protest or other contest by the original sovereign → HM King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Let me say this again.

On 31 July 1988, The Kingdom of Jordan cut all administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, leaving the West Bank in the hands of Israel without protest or other contest by the original sovereign → HM King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
​

This nonsense you spout: "because the officials look the other way" is absolutely incorrect and unsubstantiated in any fashion. The King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan did not look the other way, he even made a radio address to the citizens of his nation and the world at large.

If the Arab Palestinians had any control at all in the West Bank or Jerusalem, it is only because the Israelis allow it. Currently, because of the very poor diplomacy on the part of the Arab Palestinians, the only territory the Arab Palestinians have full civil and security control is in Area "A" through the Palestinian Authority; and the Gaza Strip because of the unilateral withdraw by the Israelis.

Any questions?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Has anyone seen the new process for tunnels from Lebanon? This is going on in Palestine today.

Israel continues to destroy the attack tunnels from Lebanon. This time the IDF flooded the tunnel with cement, shocking and embarrassing the Hezbollah.

Israel Floods Terror Tunnels with Cement. Stuns Hezbollah

Last week the IDF destroyed the fifth attack tunnel dug from Lebanon. While the United Nations continues to refrain from taking any action or resolutions against Hezbollah or Lebanon, Israel continues to destroy these underground tunnels that posed a strategic threat, planned to be used as in a future war against Israel.


Denial
Hezbollah denied Israeli claims that they had dug a terror tunnel below the block factory in the Lebanese village of Kfar Kila. Hezbollah activists were shocked to see the factory flooded with cement, that the IDF flooded from the Israeli side of the terror tunnel. The cement was used to neutralize the tunnel. Not only did it neutralize the tunnel, it also overflowed into the entrance of the tunnel in the block factory, flooding the factory with the cement!

 

[Coyote]

Km

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, et al,

Let's try this just: One - More - Time!
Just a refresher here. See if you can follow this...

View attachment 237448
​

So basically what you are saying is that if you steal something and can hold onto long enough because the officials look the other way you can legally own it?

(KEY FACTORS)

In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem...

• Treaty of Alliance between HM in respect of the UK and HH the Amir of Trans-Jordan, 22 March 1946 •

View attachment 237451
​

• Unification of the Two Banks

◈ On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: History Website: kinghussein.gov → Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
​

• Disengagement from the West Bank •

◈ On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.
​

• Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933 •

◈ ARTICLE 3

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.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

(COMMENT)

Prior to the Annexation of the West Bank by Jordanian parliament in which of the MPs were Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (this would be by the Right of independence and Sovereignty). the Government of Palestine (the UK) maintained effective control by Mandate. In 1950 the King of Jordan incorporated the West Bank into the greater Sovereignty of Jordan. In 1967, the State of Israel, in pursuit of retreating Jordanian military forces, assume effective control of the West Bank. This made the West Bank Jordanian territory under Israeli occupation. On 31 July 1988, The Kingdom of Jordan cut all administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, leaving the West Bank in the hands of Israel without protest or other contest by the original sovereign → HM King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Let me say this again.

On 31 July 1988, The Kingdom of Jordan cut all administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, leaving the West Bank in the hands of Israel without protest or other contest by the original sovereign → HM King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
​

This nonsense you spout: "because the officials look the other way" is absolutely incorrect and unsubstantiated in any fashion. The King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan did not look the other way, he even made a radio address to the citizens of his nation and the world at large.

If the Arab Palestinians had any control at all in the West Bank or Jerusalem, it is only because the Israelis allow it. Currently, because of the very poor diplomacy on the part of the Arab Palestinians, the only territory the Arab Palestinians have full civil and security control is in Area "A" through the Palestinian Authority; and the Gaza Strip because of the unilateral withdraw by the Israelis.

Any questions?

Most Respectfully,
R

Honestly, I dont think Israel ever seriously meant to cede control of Area C to the Palestinians at any time. Do you?