Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

There was no partition.

the fact of the matter is → there are in fact partitions in play today; temporary as they may be.

Created at the point of a gun not by treaty which is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Your position that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic had no right to renounces all rights and title of the territory over to the Allied Powers → "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned" is fundamentally wrong.

Once you get past this point, you will understand that the Arab Palestinian struggle over the territorial remnants amounts to an act of cession:

Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803.
cession of Alaska. Purchases of Alaska by U.S (from Russia in 1867).​

The Arab Palestinians have not had any rights or title to the territory for more than a thousand years.

.......
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

There was no partition.

the fact of the matter is → there are in fact partitions in play today; temporary as they may be.

Created at the point of a gun not by treaty which is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Your position that the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic had no right to renounces all rights and title of the territory over to the Allied Powers → "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned" is fundamentally wrong.

Once you get past this point, you will understand that the Arab Palestinian struggle over the territorial remnants amounts to an act of cession:

Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803.
cession of Alaska. Purchases of Alaska by U.S (from Russia in 1867).​

The Arab Palestinians have not had any rights or title to the territory for more than a thousand years.

.......
Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians have not had any rights or title to the territory for more than a thousand years.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

A Palestinian shepherd and his flock of sheep in the Jordan Valley.

 

[P F Tinmore]

An Israeli bulldozer demolishes a Palestinian home in Dura town, al-Khalil.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians perform noon prayer outside al-Aqsa Mosque after Israeli occupation forces closed all gates of the holy site today.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Turkish president Recep Erdogan holds a picture of a time-lapsed map of Occupied Palestine during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly to show how Israel has been expanding on Palestinian territories over the past decades.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian youths hurl stones at Israeli military jeeps during a raid on Ramallah City this afternoon.

 

[Coyote]

And may this horrific excuse for a human being always be condemned for his vile and inhumane act of terrorism. May he serve as a singular reminder of what every Jew, and what every human being, of whatever ethnicity, must resist becoming.

Too bad that isn't a universal sentiment these days. And yes - what every human being - it doesn't matter who. There have been too many similar incidents around the world in the past few years.

 

[Coyote]

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

Yeah, this has been repeated so many times, that it has become very distorted.

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

So, that doesn't change anything.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Middle East and the former territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, this was taken into account in Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

Basically, what this says is that → as an example scenario: I live in Ohio which borders Canada. I (not my children who live in PA and KY) own my own home. If the US were to transfer the political sovereignty of Ohio to Canada, I would still own my land; BUT, my nationality would transfer in with the land.

The way in which you from your statement is misleading and very elementary. This scenario I render demonstrates that I "belong" to the land and my nationality follows the land.

.........
Most Respectfully,
R

Again this discussion about "Right of Return" seems to be merely misinformation by the Arab propaganda, relying on the false notion that such even exists, conflating it to granting citizenship privileges to certain groups as normally practiced in many nation states like Ireland, Greece etc, and in this case merely copying the name it was given under Israeli law to this practice, while no such right or binding law actually existing that could force a nation except those whom they have no interest in providing that privilege, for each nations' specific reasons.

Does this right actually exist, or is it another matter of grey area taken for granted?

Let me add to this ^^^^

that in practice, in the reality of the middle eastern conflicts, it's unlikely that even if such concepts are accepted by the western community, will be fully or if at all respected in the region, and most probably denied under Tinnie's favorite excuse to deny Jews any form of independence as - "foreign intervention".

Furthermore given the clear bias against Israel, whether it follows any of these concepts or not, any of their actions or decisions in relation to the Arab governments will be automatically deemed "illegal"; While none of them were or will be demanded from the Arab side in the opposite direction.

Therefore what is left is to discuss the real concepts, and cultural archetypes that influence the development on the ground and stay in contradiction to (what seems to me) most of the modern Western concepts according to which various solutions are measured.

Specifically the concept under Jewish Law - of specific land forever belonging to a specific nation only , regardless of who might have invaded it and inhabits in any given time. This in a way resembles the modern western understanding of the status of indigenous cultures in their lands of origin, however with rare exception, remains only as intellectual concept.

And the dual Arab Muslim concept - of 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Harb', meaning land already governed under Muslim rule, vs land not yet dominated that is under a non-Muslim rule. However with that also comes a clause which allows specifically only Arab rule in the Arabian peninsula.

Therefore the question should be rather - can these 3 systems of law practically come to terms,
and in what way?

Can they?

 

[Coyote]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

 

[USAF 2023]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

You’re “ forgetting “ six little words; “ Live in peace with your neighbors”

Keep posting.!

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

You’re “ forgetting “ six little words; “ Live in peace with your neighbors”

Keep posting.!

How many have not?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Linda Sarsour: Bernie Won’t "Cater To AIPAC"

 

[rylah]

Palestinians perform noon prayer outside al-Aqsa Mosque after Israeli occupation forces closed all gates of the holy site today.

Suspiciously no date and no link.
Just a random picture that cannot confirm anything,
like most of your daily nonesense copied from Arab propaganda.

What do you have to hide?

 

[rylah]

Turkish president Recep Erdogan holds a picture of a time-lapsed map of Occupied Palestine during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly to show how Israel has been expanding on Palestinian territories over the past decades.

Well, the Sultan failed to mention that non of that land was ever legally assigned for an Arab country.
But you already knew that, just keep lying knowingly.

 

[rylah]

And may this horrific excuse for a human being always be condemned for his vile and inhumane act of terrorism. May he serve as a singular reminder of what every Jew, and what every human being, of whatever ethnicity, must resist becoming.

Too bad that isn't a universal sentiment these days. And yes - what every human being - it doesn't matter who. There have been too many similar incidents around the world in the past few years.

You as usual just try to make an equivalence where there's none.
We both know there's one prevailing ideology that uses holy sites as military installations, and target not only other religious groups around the world by a HUGE MARGIN, but also their own.
And this definitely matters.

Can you show me an incident where Christians gathered in a mosque preventing Muslims from praying there during their holiday screaming in thousands "Slaughter Muslims!" while recruiting Christians in that mosque to massacre Muslims?

Can You show me an incident where Muslims gathered in a church preventing Christians from praying there during their holiday screaming in thousands "Slaughter Christians!" while recruiting Muslims in that church to massacre Christians?

 

[rylah]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

Indeed.

I have said before that a people and their land are married. They cannot be separated. The UN was correct to pass resolution 194. The people should return to their homes.

You certainly may think that if you were a Caliphate invader,
who wanted to keep domination over several continents.

 

[rylah]

One of the most basic concept of international law is that the people belong to the land.

Many parts of international law like aggression, ethnic cleansing, conquest, territorial integrity hinge on this basic concept.

Refugees belong to the land and must be allowed to return. Descendants have the right to return because they do not belong anywhere else. Other countries are not required to absorb refugees because they do not belong there. Nationality is determined by where you belong.

Nationality is determined by the domestic laws of individual nations. It is, for ease of explanation, a contract between a State and its citizens. Countries are not required to absorb refugees because they have no relationship with those people, let alone mutual obligations. Laws against statelessness require that when a person would otherwise be stateless, the become a national of the country in which they were born.

The idea of people belonging to a land is nonsense.

Well is it totally?

If a country takes control of an area - do the people there not come with it? If a stateless person becomes a national in of the country they were born in then that means those refugees born in the country they fled from would be nationals of it, but unable to return to it.

There is also a moral aspect. People belonging to a land and a land belonging to a people are interchangeable in a sense, in the way people feel about a land. Isn't it what drives indigenous rights to a place? For that matter - the rights of any long standing native peoples?

It depends if those refugees collaborated with an attempt to exterminate that nation, and were the enemies of the country.

Your reasoning for that "moral aspect" is in fact an example of ultimate immorality, where you try to equate an indigenous nation with that of the invading empire, that denies most basic freedom and equality to all involved in the lands they've invaded. Feelings have nothing to do with it, an imperialist invader might as well feel that because of all the effort invested, just deserves to keep their domination over several continents and subjugated nations.

The longstanding presence of a foreign Arab culture doesn't prevail over the rights of the
indigenous Hebrew culture that originated in that land. And the claim of a longstanding presence on its own doesn't provide any moral or legal rationalization, rather should always be weighed against the well-being of all involved.

 

[Mindful]

What Are Palestinian Leaders Afraid Of?
by Khaled Abu Toameh
October 31, 2019 at 5:00 am

• Hamas justified the arrest of Qatoush by accusing him of "leaking security details." It is not clear how a complaint about economic hardship has turned into a security-related case. In the eyes of Hamas, however, it seems that any Palestinian who dares to complain about the bad economy in the Gaza Strip is a "traitor" and a "security threat."
  
  
• From all accounts, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas are neck-and-neck in their competition to crush freedom of expression and crack down on the media.
  
  
• "It is certain that the Arab Spring will arrive, sooner or later, to Palestine... The [ruling] Palestinian elite is mostly corrupt and tyrannical. With the exception of a few, the [Palestinian] elite is corrupt and incompetent -- or both." — Hani al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, samanews.ps, October 22, 2019.
  
  
• Criticism is fine, of course -- if it is directed at the Palestinians' arch-enemy, Israel. Otherwise, Palestinian journalists had best keep their criticism to themselves -- lest the PA and Hamas decide to leave them in critical condition.

What Are Palestinian Leaders Afraid Of?