Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

There are two different stories here.

The Israeli version is that Israel is a state.

The Palestinian version is that Israel occupies Palestine.

Which is true?

Israel has tons of political recognition but documents on its legal standing are illusive.

Document the legal standing of Jordan. Then show how Israel's legal standing differs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are two different stories here.

The Israeli version is that Israel is a state.

The Palestinian version is that Israel occupies Palestine.

Which is true?

Israel has tons of political recognition but documents on its legal standing are illusive.

Document the legal standing of Jordan. Then show how Israel's legal standing differs.

Deflection.

 

[Shusha]

There are two different stories here.

The Israeli version is that Israel is a state.

The Palestinian version is that Israel occupies Palestine.

Which is true?

Israel has tons of political recognition but documents on its legal standing are illusive.

Document the legal standing of Jordan. Then show how Israel's legal standing differs.

Deflection.

Rolled a 5, huh?

You LOVE to make ridiculous statements about legal standings, but can't back it up.

You don't like my objective test of Jordan? Fine. Make up your own test. Tell us how one knows whether or not a State is legal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are two different stories here.

The Israeli version is that Israel is a state.

The Palestinian version is that Israel occupies Palestine.

Which is true?

Israel has tons of political recognition but documents on its legal standing are illusive.

Document the legal standing of Jordan. Then show how Israel's legal standing differs.

Deflection.

Rolled a 5, huh?

You LOVE to make ridiculous statements about legal standings, but can't back it up.

You don't like my objective test of Jordan? Fine. Make up your own test. Tell us how one knows whether or not a State is legal.

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is so strange...

I thought we agreed that → "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Israel has tons of political recognition but documents on its legal standing are illusive.

(COMMENT)

What do you want to see in terms of "documents on its legal standing?" What does that even mean?

I use the Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. There is no entry for the term "Legal Standing" or 'Legal" or "Standing." So, I am at somewhat of a loss.

(QUESTIONS)

What do the Arab Palestinians use for this self-created requirement?

What are you trying to point out?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

 

[USAF 2023]

“ From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free” The above names bother you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

 

[Shusha]

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

Outline for me what you think the relevant factors are. You seem to suggest two above: definition and borders of territory being clearly defined AND exchange of financial consideration.

For example, would you suggest that Palestine can't be a State until it purchases territory from the previous sovereign? In this case, the Ottoman Empire?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

Outline for me what you think the relevant factors are. You seem to suggest two above: definition and borders of territory being clearly defined AND exchange of financial consideration.

For example, would you suggest that Palestine can't be a State until it purchases territory from the previous sovereign? In this case, the Ottoman Empire?

The new states did have financial obligations laid out in the treaty.

 

[Shusha]

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

Outline for me what you think the relevant factors are. You seem to suggest two above: definition and borders of territory being clearly defined AND exchange of financial consideration.

For example, would you suggest that Palestine can't be a State until it purchases territory from the previous sovereign? In this case, the Ottoman Empire?

The new states did have financial obligations laid out in the treaty.

Not my point. Is PURCHASE territory is REQUIREMENT for sovereignty over territory? Yes or no?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, you can't prove a negative but there is an absence of documentation showing where Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

Outline for me what you think the relevant factors are. You seem to suggest two above: definition and borders of territory being clearly defined AND exchange of financial consideration.

For example, would you suggest that Palestine can't be a State until it purchases territory from the previous sovereign? In this case, the Ottoman Empire?

The new states did have financial obligations laid out in the treaty.

Not my point. Is PURCHASE territory is REQUIREMENT for sovereignty over territory? Yes or no?

Not always. The land was ceded to Palestine. The people who lived there became the owners. They were the sovereigns of the territory. They did not need to buy it because it was already theirs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

Your positive claim is that there is some sort of documentation required. Or some other proof of legal standing. Or acquisition of land. Prove that positive claim.

Exactly why I asked you to compare it to other states. What kind of legal documentation is required? If you can demonstrate that OTHER states have this documentation but Israel does not have this documentation, you would have a case.

But you can't. Because you know very well that there is no such thing and you are just blowing hot air.

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

Outline for me what you think the relevant factors are. You seem to suggest two above: definition and borders of territory being clearly defined AND exchange of financial consideration.

For example, would you suggest that Palestine can't be a State until it purchases territory from the previous sovereign? In this case, the Ottoman Empire?

The new states did have financial obligations laid out in the treaty.

Not my point. Is PURCHASE territory is REQUIREMENT for sovereignty over territory? Yes or no?

Not always. The land was ceded to Palestine. The people who lived there became the owners. They were the sovereigns of the territory. They did not need to buy it because it was already theirs.

Right. So purchase is not a requirement for sovereignty. We agree.

We also agree that territory has to be defined. And there is no argument from me that the territory in question, whether you want to call it Palestine, Israel or Mars was clearly defined.

So. What other requirements are there for State sovereignty. Specifically which positive requirements must be in place which Israel does not have?

 

[P F Tinmore]

One example would be the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848 between the US and Mexico. The borders of the territory acquired by the US were carefully defined. The price of the territory and the payment schedule were defined in the treaty.

Avalon Project - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

Outline for me what you think the relevant factors are. You seem to suggest two above: definition and borders of territory being clearly defined AND exchange of financial consideration.

For example, would you suggest that Palestine can't be a State until it purchases territory from the previous sovereign? In this case, the Ottoman Empire?

The new states did have financial obligations laid out in the treaty.

Not my point. Is PURCHASE territory is REQUIREMENT for sovereignty over territory? Yes or no?

Not always. The land was ceded to Palestine. The people who lived there became the owners. They were the sovereigns of the territory. They did not need to buy it because it was already theirs.

Right. So purchase is not a requirement for sovereignty. We agree.

We also agree that territory has to be defined. And there is no argument from me that the territory in question, whether you want to call it Palestine, Israel or Mars was clearly defined.

So. What other requirements are there for State sovereignty. Specifically which positive requirements must be in place which Israel does not have?

So purchase is not a requirement for sovereignty.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Israel is a State like every other.

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The State of Israel came into existence long before the State of Palestine. In fact, while Israel has a defined territory, the Arab Palestinians do not have any sovereign territory.

Except where limited by treaty, the State of Israel is "free" to legislate and "enforce that legislation" within its territory, Israel, under its own sovereign power, is free to apply its laws to the entire population within its territory. Except for Area "A" and the Gaza Strip, under which the Arab Palestinians have full civil and security control, the Arab Palestinians cannot unilaterally "free" to legislate and "enforce that legislation" under its own authority.

It is true that (like the believers of a "flat Earth") it is difficult to change the minds and perspectives of the Arab Palestinians that believe the "Israel occupies Palestine;" it does not change the reality of what has historically happened.

Boundary treaties

A treaty that establishes or confirms a boundary creates a regime that all other states must
recognise. A party to the treaty cannot invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground
for terminating it, except perhaps where the conditions for the legitimate operation of the principle
of self-determination exist.​

◈ Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979) •

Article II • The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II.​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

Article 3 - International Boundary
The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a)​

Both the Treaty with Egypt and the Treaty with Jordan were created after the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 which established the "Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated." The territory of the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip were not liberated by the PLO. The treaties brought to a conclusion the Conflict of the 1948 War. Each treaty terminated the Armistice Agreements under Article XII of each agreement ("shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved").

With regard to the All Palestine Government (APG), President Nasser closed its offices in 1959. The PLO did not declare independence until 1988.

(TERRITORY)

The treaties with Egypt and Jordan were executed without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

All Parties understood the applicability of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law governing relations among states in times of peace (See A/RES/2625 XXV).

◈ Each signatory recognizes the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of each party.

◈ Each signatory recognizes and respects the right to live in peace within their secure and recognized boundaries.

◈ Each signatory has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the other,
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore is trying to argue that there is a set of objective critieria for a State coming into being and obtaining sovereignty. Of course he is unable to articulate that criteria. But is pretty sure Israel does not meet it. Even though he can't formulate an argument for it.

(I agree, btw. There IS a set of objective criteria for a state to come into being. I've articulated it several times. It is encapsulated in the Montevideo Convention. The requirements are: population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter into agreements with other States (recognition).

Israel has them all. Palestine does not.)

Tinmore thinks Israel should have a different definition. Double standards.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Israel is a State like every other.

This is how territory is legally acquired. This is the documentation that I have been looking for.

(COMMENT)

The State of Israel came into existence long before the State of Palestine. In fact, while Israel has a defined territory, the Arab Palestinians do not have any sovereign territory.

Except where limited by treaty, the State of Israel is "free" to legislate and "enforce that legislation" within its territory, Israel, under its own sovereign power, is free to apply its laws to the entire population within its territory. Except for Area "A" and the Gaza Strip, under which the Arab Palestinians have full civil and security control, the Arab Palestinians cannot unilaterally "free" to legislate and "enforce that legislation" under its own authority.

It is true that (like the believers of a "flat Earth") it is difficult to change the minds and perspectives of the Arab Palestinians that believe the "Israel occupies Palestine;" it does not change the reality of what has historically happened.

Boundary treaties

A treaty that establishes or confirms a boundary creates a regime that all other states must
recognise. A party to the treaty cannot invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground
for terminating it, except perhaps where the conditions for the legitimate operation of the principle
of self-determination exist.​

◈ Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979) •

Article II • The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II.​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

Article 3 - International Boundary
The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a)​

Both the Treaty with Egypt and the Treaty with Jordan were created after the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 which established the "Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated." The territory of the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip were not liberated by the PLO. The treaties brought to a conclusion the Conflict of the 1948 War. Each treaty terminated the Armistice Agreements under Article XII of each agreement ("shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved").

With regard to the All Palestine Government (APG), President Nasser closed its offices in 1959. The PLO did not declare independence until 1988.

(TERRITORY)

The treaties with Egypt and Jordan were executed without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

All Parties understood the applicability of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law governing relations among states in times of peace (See A/RES/2625 XXV).

◈ Each signatory recognizes the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of each party.

◈ Each signatory recognizes and respects the right to live in peace within their secure and recognized boundaries.

◈ Each signatory has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the other,
​

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
You are still dancing around my posts.