Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

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

I would not dare to try and confuse the issue.

The argument completely jumps over the relevant point that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty and answers the question:

◈ By what right does a non-party to an agreement have over the interpretation and enforcement of an independent treaty to which other soveriegnties are enjoined?​

​

You are trying to confuse the issue. As I have posted before, a treaty is void if it conflicts with international law. On the flip side, treaties define how international law applies to a certain circumstance. The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

(COMMENT)

A law relative to "speeding" is an actually enforced by a piece of legislation relative to jurisdiction and enacted by a governing body. (It does not need your name to be applicable.) Whereas treaties and conventions must a "consent to be bound" by the parties involved.

A "Treaty" or "Convention" is an agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation (Article 2 of the Vienna Convention). But it must also be understood that there are agreements concluded between entities that are outside the Vienna Convention.

To my knowledge, → there is no conflict in law relative to our discussion. Just as laws evolve or can be changed in almost every country [(most things change over time)(∆t)] your basic interpretation and implication that agreements between states cannot be altered, dissolved or replaced → is not correct.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that refute my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Exclusive: Angela Davis Speaks Out on Palestine, BDS & More After Civil Rights Award Is Revoked

 

[rylah]

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

I would not dare to try and confuse the issue.

The argument completely jumps over the relevant point that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty and answers the question:

◈ By what right does a non-party to an agreement have over the interpretation and enforcement of an independent treaty to which other soveriegnties are enjoined?​

​

You are trying to confuse the issue. As I have posted before, a treaty is void if it conflicts with international law. On the flip side, treaties define how international law applies to a certain circumstance. The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

(COMMENT)

A law relative to "speeding" is an actually enforced by a piece of legislation relative to jurisdiction and enacted by a governing body. (It does not need your name to be applicable.) Whereas treaties and conventions must a "consent to be bound" by the parties involved.

A "Treaty" or "Convention" is an agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation (Article 2 of the Vienna Convention). But it must also be understood that there are agreements concluded between entities that are outside the Vienna Convention.

To my knowledge, → there is no conflict in law relative to our discussion. Just as laws evolve or can be changed in almost every country [(most things change over time)(∆t)] your basic interpretation and implication that agreements between states cannot be altered, dissolved or replaced → is not correct.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that refute my post?

You're right in depicting the Arabs as a natural recipients in granting that law , but it in matter to deny Jewish inhabitants from denying that law You're not in the serving sector.

 

[rylah]

The Jewish sector is right to that favor ... as apposed by the Arab Muslim community?

 

[RoccoR]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

'
The creation of thud the creating of Jewish power a grunts a sovereignty they parts of eventual superpower to supreme to the power of the sovereign to the stage of the owering power to suggest.

 

[rylah]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

'
The creation of thud the creating of Jewish power a grunts a sovereignty they parts of eventual superpower to supreme to the power of the sovereign to the stage of the owering power to suggest.

The Jewish power to sightless to suggest power of overpower

 

[rylah]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

'
The creation of thud the creating of Jewish power a grunts a sovereignty they parts of eventual superpower to supreme to the power of the sovereign to the stage of the owering power to suggest.

The Jewish power to sightless to suggest power of overpower
A thus making the Arab power to ever-lapse

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict.

I did?

 

[Mindful]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Substantiate your comment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, Let's step back for a minute. In posting #8000, you contend that no Treaty Arrangement can be made that is pre-emptively estopped by a norm expected the international community:"

Article 53 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of General International Law
(“jus cogens”)
​

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

The central point here is that you implied there is a conflict with another law (an accepted practice or law by the international community). I have demonstrated there is no conflict. In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne DID NOT establish any independent and sovereign nation in the region that was accepted by the Allied Powers that agreed upon putting into effect the establishment → in territory under Mandate → a national home for the Jewish people. In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1924, no state had been created in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine except Transjordania. No country of Palestine was created until 2012.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Substantiate your comment.

Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

 

[Mindful]

Tells me nothing.

Either it is, or it isn't.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tells me nothing.

Either it is, or it isn't.

Where does it say it isn't?

 

[Mindful]

Tells me nothing.

Either it is, or it isn't.

Where does it say it isn't?

So what's all the fuss about?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tells me nothing.

Either it is, or it isn't.

Where does it say it isn't?

So what's all the fuss about?

Israel is always trying to "disappear" Palestine but it is just Israeli talking points.

 

[Mindful]

Tells me nothing.

Either it is, or it isn't.

Where does it say it isn't?

So what's all the fuss about?

Israel is always trying to "disappear" Palestine but it is just Israeli talking points.

Yeah right. Of course it is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arab Israelis: Are you living under occupation?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Khalil Jahshan - The Fake Peace Process

 

[Shusha]

In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state ...

I'm going to guess it says no such thing. Please provide paragraph number where it claims Palestine was a state.