Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have sent you the recognized borders for Israel and Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt several times. The entity masquerading as the State of Palestine has declined to negotiate at all on the borders.

Why would they want to change their borders?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have sent you the recognized borders for Israel and Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt several times. The entity masquerading as the State of Palestine has declined to negotiate at all on the borders.

Why would they want to change their borders?

Liechtenstein!!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Remedy: Jamal Simmons chats with Rashida Tlaib about overcoming obstacles

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

Answer the question. What happens when a state abandons territory? What is the legal status of the territory?

 

[Shusha]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

Link?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

Link?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Then why do you blabber on about something you can't prove? If you can't prove it, it is a lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

Link?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?

In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The issue turned on whether Palestine was a state. To test the waters, Britain made discreet diplomatic inquiries to ask whether, if Britain were to exempt Palestine, the United States would claim a similar exemption on the basis that Palestine was a state. The United States replied emphatically that it would. The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

 

[Shusha]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

Link?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Then why do you blabber on about something you can't prove? If you can't prove it, it is a lie.

Oh I have dozens of documents to prove the existence of any country you care to name.

Have you got even one to prove the existence of Atlantis. Um I mean Palestine?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

Link?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?

Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.

Then why do you blabber on about something you can't prove? If you can't prove it, it is a lie.

Oh I have dozens of documents to prove the existence of any country you care to name.

Have you got even one to prove the existence of Atlantis. Um I mean Palestine?

The US said that Palestine was a state. The PCIJ said that Palestine was a state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lebanese actress Manal Issa holds a sign that reads "Stop the Attack on Gaza" at the premiere of "Solo: A Star Wars Story" at the Cannes film festival today.

[Photo by Vianney Le Caer/Invision/AP]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian chef Joudie Kalla on her coobook Baladi

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Zionism & the Apartheid State Of Israel | Ken O'Keefe, Jenny Tonge & Dr Ghada Karmi