Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

Not at all no tap dancing involved at all. Although you might be showing signs of the Ostrich Effect.

Page #38: Terra nullius can be acquired by any state (not by a private person or company, unless acting for the state) that has the intention to claim sovereignty and occupies it by exercising effective and continued control. Occupation is a peaceful means of acquiring territory.

Page #40: Because such treaties transfer sovereignty, at least de facto, they should be distinguished from leases granted to foreign states under the domestic law of the grantor state, such as for military bases, although today the land may be made merely ‘available.' Such leases involve no transfer of sovereignty.

You are still dancing around my posts.

(COMMENT)

Your posting is actually questioning the extent to which the two treaties cited are all that is necessary.

● By Treaty the agree upon boundry between Jordan and Israel encapsulated the West Bank (including Jerusalem). SO, the Timore Argument is that the Hashemite Kingdom did not actually have sovereign control over that territory.

● By Treaty the agree upon boundry between Egypt and Israel encapsulated the Gaza Strip. SO, the Timore Argument is that the when Egypt disolved the All Palestine Government and then entered into a treaty with Israel, Egypt did not actually have sovereign control over that territory.​

Let's just think about that for a moment. Which state parties had control over what territory and when? Who's in charge?

Certainly, by no stretch of the imagination are the Arab Palestinians recorded a being in charge or anything for the previous 800 years anyway... So if we subtract the Arab Palestinians out of the equation of sovereign control, then who had what control?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The treaties with Egypt and Jordan were were brokered by the US not the UN. As we all know, the US has never been an honest broker. Flouting international law has never been a problem for them.

The problem I see is that Israel is claiming borders on land that the UN calls Palestine. I have brought this up before and you always start dancing. You always blow a page of smoke without addressing this issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Not at all no tap dancing involved at all. Although you might be showing signs of the Ostrich Effect.

Page #38: Terra nullius can be acquired by any state (not by a private person or company, unless acting for the state) that has the intention to claim sovereignty and occupies it by exercising effective and continued control. Occupation is a peaceful means of acquiring territory.

Page #40: Because such treaties transfer sovereignty, at least de facto, they should be distinguished from leases granted to foreign states under the domestic law of the grantor state, such as for military bases, although today the land may be made merely ‘available.' Such leases involve no transfer of sovereignty.

You are still dancing around my posts.

(COMMENT)

Your posting is actually questioning the extent to which the two treaties cited are all that is necessary.

● By Treaty the agree upon boundry between Jordan and Israel encapsulated the West Bank (including Jerusalem). SO, the Timore Argument is that the Hashemite Kingdom did not actually have sovereign control over that territory.

● By Treaty the agree upon boundry between Egypt and Israel encapsulated the Gaza Strip. SO, the Timore Argument is that the when Egypt disolved the All Palestine Government and then entered into a treaty with Israel, Egypt did not actually have sovereign control over that territory.​

Let's just think about that for a moment. Which state parties had control over what territory and when? Who's in charge?

Certainly, by no stretch of the imagination are the Arab Palestinians recorded a being in charge or anything for the previous 800 years anyway... So if we subtract the Arab Palestinians out of the equation of sovereign control, then who had what control?

Most Respectfully,
R

that has the intention to claim sovereignty and occupies it by exercising effective and continued control. Occupation is a peaceful means of acquiring territory.​

When does the peaceful part kick in?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How to be a Palestinian supermom

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Not at all no tap dancing involved at all. Although you might be showing signs of the Ostrich Effect.

Page #38: Terra nullius can be acquired by any state (not by a private person or company, unless acting for the state) that has the intention to claim sovereignty and occupies it by exercising effective and continued control. Occupation is a peaceful means of acquiring territory.

Page #40: Because such treaties transfer sovereignty, at least de facto, they should be distinguished from leases granted to foreign states under the domestic law of the grantor state, such as for military bases, although today the land may be made merely ‘available.' Such leases involve no transfer of sovereignty.

You are still dancing around my posts.

(COMMENT)

Your posting is actually questioning the extent to which the two treaties cited are all that is necessary.

● By Treaty the agree upon boundry between Jordan and Israel encapsulated the West Bank (including Jerusalem). SO, the Timore Argument is that the Hashemite Kingdom did not actually have sovereign control over that territory.

● By Treaty the agree upon boundry between Egypt and Israel encapsulated the Gaza Strip. SO, the Timore Argument is that the when Egypt disolved the All Palestine Government and then entered into a treaty with Israel, Egypt did not actually have sovereign control over that territory.​

Let's just think about that for a moment. Which state parties had control over what territory and when? Who's in charge?

Certainly, by no stretch of the imagination are the Arab Palestinians recorded a being in charge or anything for the previous 800 years anyway... So if we subtract the Arab Palestinians out of the equation of sovereign control, then who had what control?

Most Respectfully,
R

that has the intention to claim sovereignty and occupies it by exercising effective and continued control. Occupation is a peaceful means of acquiring territory.​

When does the peaceful part kick in?

Ironically, before the Oslo Accords, life was relatively peaceful in the West Bank. I met a Palestinian youth at the Tomb of Abraham in 1982. He had studied at Oxford University in England and was satisfied with his life. Conditions became much more tumultuous after the Palestinians in the West Bank were given a certain degree of autonomy.

 

[Shusha]

that has the intention to claim sovereignty and occupies it by exercising effective and continued control. Occupation is a peaceful means of acquiring territory.​

When does the peaceful part kick in?

It kicks in when the people in the territory stop attacking Israel and either built their own state and become independent or become a peaceful part of Israel. But the people in the territory are the ones who have to make that decision and then follow through on it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Dajani house in Baq'a, Jerusalem, 1940's

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[USAF 2023]

YAWN.... Here we go again. The poster just can’t get it through his head that the ONLY reason some Hasidic and Orthodox Jews oppose Israel is that they don’t believe Israel should exist till the Messiah comes . Ironically, they are not denying Jewish History and the biblical claims to the land.
I attribute this to denial, ignorance, and stupidity. Keep posting.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]