Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[Hossfly]

Essentially, what my sources tell us is land acquired by military conquest by Israel, she has no sovereignty rights in that land. She has no sovereignty rights in lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. The International Court of Justice confirmed this to be true in its Opiniin on the Wall in 2004.

Did you find this item from your "Sources" interesting?

Nobel Laureate Tells U.N. Rights Council: ?Stop Undermining Peace? | Israel Video Network

 

[P F Tinmore]

Essentially, what my sources tell us is land acquired by military conquest by Israel, she has no sovereignty rights in that land. She has no sovereignty rights in lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. The International Court of Justice confirmed this to be true in its Opiniin on the Wall in 2004.

Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

76. Subsequently, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994 between Israel and Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the two States "with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a) . . . without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" (Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2). Annex I provided the corresponding maps and added that, with regard to the "territory that came under Israeli military government control in 1967", the line indicated "is the administrative boundary" with Jordan.

 

[Hossfly]

Essentially, what my sources tell us is land acquired by military conquest by Israel, she has no sovereignty rights in that land. She has no sovereignty rights in lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. The International Court of Justice confirmed this to be true in its Opiniin on the Wall in 2004.

Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Reading the exchanges between Sherri and Tinmore is akin to reading exchanges between Boudreaux and Thibodeaux with one exception; they never get to the punch line.

Most southerners and especially coonasses know what I mean.

 

[toastman]

I did not say that at all.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

You are having 'admitting the truth' problem.

I don't get why you're being so immature about this. You cannot change facts as you please.

YOU make baseless claims a 12 year old would have the intelligence not to make and which you cannot back up and have the gall to call another childish?

What are you talking about 'baseless claims', i posted links, so shut your NAzi mouth

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

76. Subsequently, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994 between Israel and Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the two States "with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a) . . . without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" (Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2). Annex I provided the corresponding maps and added that, with regard to the "territory that came under Israeli military government control in 1967", the line indicated "is the administrative boundary" with Jordan.

Two points, treaties simply set out obligations owed between two nations to one another. Second. NOTICE THAT LANGUAGE about an administrative boundary. That is there specifically because Israel occupies the land, she does not have sovereignty rights in that land.

 

[toastman]

Essentially, what my sources tell us is land acquired by military conquest by Israel, she has no sovereignty rights in that land. She has no sovereignty rights in lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. The International Court of Justice confirmed this to be true in its Opiniin on the Wall in 2004.

Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Reading the exchanges between Sherri and Tinmore is akin to reading exchanges between Boudreaux and Thibodeaux with one exception; they never get to the punch line.

Most southerners and especially coonasses know what I mean.

Sherri is Tinnie's new sock puppet

 

[Hossfly]

Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Reading the exchanges between Sherri and Tinmore is akin to reading exchanges between Boudreaux and Thibodeaux with one exception; they never get to the punch line.

Most southerners and especially coonasses know what I mean.

Sherri is Tinnie's new sock puppet

Since Frau Sherri can't seem to leave the computer XXXXXXX, maybe she should order a pair of sandals like Jesus wore while she is busy typing on different forums bashing Israel and the Jews. As for Tinnie, I think he misses his fellow Gazans who like him don't know what grits are.

?Emmaus? style Biblical sandals - Israel Today | Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

Essentially, what my sources tell us is land acquired by military conquest by Israel, she has no sovereignty rights in that land. She has no sovereignty rights in lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. The International Court of Justice confirmed this to be true in its Opiniin on the Wall in 2004.

Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

“the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”

It is interesting that the ICJ mentioned the territorial sovereignty of the Palestinians.

Israel consistently claims that since Palestine has never been an independent state (according to Israel's opinion) that the Palestinians have no right to their land - that the territory was up for grabs.

This looks like just another Israeli lie.

 

[toastman]

Essentially, what my sources tell us is land acquired by military conquest by Israel, she has no sovereignty rights in that land. She has no sovereignty rights in lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. The International Court of Justice confirmed this to be true in its Opiniin on the Wall in 2004.

Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

“the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”

It is interesting that the ICJ mentioned the territorial sovereignty of the Palestinians.

Israel consistently claims that since Palestine has never been an independent state (according to Israel's opinion) that the Palestinians have no right to their land - that the territory was up for grabs.

This looks like just another Israeli lie.

All these jibberish posts of yours, and you still haven disproved anything Rocco said. YOu are just continuously making a fool of yourself.

 

[member]

Say, Tinnie, do you happen to have any videos made by Christians calling for justice in the Muslim world. As much as you, a fellow Gazan, is mainly interested in Palestinians, surely as a decent, kind man, you are appalled at the treatment of Christians in the Muslim world and would like to see justice for them and to see Muslims becoming tolerant toward those of other religions.

"Palestine sets a good example for other countries in the region."

"Were you drunk when you typed this?"

You know that he's...he's ...he's -- he's gotta 'save-face.' he's from a different mindset. see that he said "Palestine." ...and his other chilling thoughts...very different from the norm (i.e., "what 'good example' palestine sets" - hope he rattles off a few).

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I recognize that many (if not most) of the people we call Palestinians today, claim some inherent right to independence and some undefined right to self-determination. Their claims to war are often based on:

• That the actions taken to fullfil the objectives of the Mandate of Palestine was a violation of the Arab right of self-determination:
  • --- Forcing an indigenous Arab population to come under Jewish control.
  • --- That the Jewish State was largely an immigrant non-Islamic culture of foreign people who invaded Palestine.
• The thought that Palestine was is a country; almost exclusively Arab, which the Arabs have maintained for a millennium; and reject Jewish historical claims.
  
• The UK, in issuing the Balfour Declaration, made disposition on the territory that did not belong to it; the Arab having a prior claim.
  
• That the UK administration of the Mandate of Palestine was in was in contravention to the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
• That the outcome and subsequent treaty between the Turks and the Allied Powers (at the end of WWI) did not empower the Allied Powers to dispose of the Arab country (undefined Palestine).
  
• That the Arabs, face with the alternative between Turkish rule and eventual Jewish Subjection through the Balfour Declaration (UK Administration of Palestine), would prefer Turkish Rule.
  
• That all the surrounding Arab States had been granted independence, except the Palestinian.
  
• That the "right of return" for those that abandoned, fled, driven out, or displaced by the al-Nakba (1948-49 War of Independence) be allowed.
  
• That the the military occupation after the 1967 War was illegal;
  
• Jewish settlers programs in the Occupied Territories were illegal;
  
• That the annexation of East Jerusalem was illegal;
  
• That the de facto annexation of the Golan Heights was illegal.

Yet none of this sets international boundaries for a place called "Palestine." None of this is a valid challenge to the Treaties established under international law which set the boundaries for Israel.

None of this says, that Israel annexed the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

I think it might be helpful to look at high an international court, the highest court in our world, reached its findings that Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. I am going to address what the court says, one paragraph at a time. 70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that:"Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the*International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131).The territorial boundaries of the Mandate for Palestine were laid down by various instruments, in particular on the eastern border by a British memorandum of 16 September 1922 and an Anglo Transjordanian Treaty of 20 February 1928.71. In 1947 the United Kingdom announced its intention to comp

The Court addresses the Mandate, how it was a sacred trust of civilization and it was set up in the interests of the inhabitants of the land. It is pointed out non annexation and the interests of the people in the land are of paramount importance.

(COMMENT)

The idea of being "in the interest of the people" and "paramount importance" are subjective in terms of implementation.

No where in the Advisory Opinion does it state that there was a country called Palestine. There was, of course, a Mandate over a territory of Palestine, which had boundaries to be determined by the Allied Powers.

Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. This angered the Zionists, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region. The treaty stipulated that Transjordan would be prepared for independence under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state. In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan.

Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan.

SOURCE: Jordan - History - The Making of Transjordan

While it is a great citation, the Anglo-Transjordanian treaties where for the benefit of Jordan, with the Emir's intent of reducing the British Mandate of Palestine to enhance Jordan. If anything, they show that the original Mandate was much larger than we normally talk about today (77-78% of the original Mandate). And the Western boundary set by those treaties were the very first boundaries still in use today.

So, none of this Humanitarian, Advisory Opinion, Palestinian Folklore, actually changes the reality of today. There is still Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and - no country called Palestine through 2011. Recent events still need time to resolve some meaning.

(SIDEBAR)

In these discussions, there have been a couple of recurring themes that are dependent on western humanitarian in law, posed by an opponent that is anything but humanitarian in nature. These claims most often are motived and justified by the ICJ Advisory Opinion with no Israeli advocate.

• “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”
  
• customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”

The first, "annexation" and "self-determination" does not suggest how the "wall" which separates the belligerents undermines the ability of the Palestinians to further there economy and commerce. Instead, it totally discounts the security nature of the "wall" and the purpose for which it was built.

• the ICJ was not convinced that the destructions carried out by Israel contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
  
• the ICJ was not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives.

The ICJ totally discounts inherent right of Israel to establish an effective self-defense in the face of armed assaults, suicide bombing, and rocket attacks. It suggests that the history of Palestinian action against unarmed civilian targets of no military consequence have no relevance in the matter. That the Palestinians can instigate a military exchange by firing indiscriminately into Israel, and then claim an international foul when the Israel answer the exchange. The ICJ suggests that the Palestinians can infiltrated Israeli territory and entered a neighbourhood bakery and detonated suicide bomb, without consequence. The ICJ suggest that the Palestinians can create ‘facts on the ground’, in violation of international law, precisely in order to pre-determine the outcome of the negotiations or to simulate a media event.

The second issue of "acquisition of territory by war" is based on the ICJ assumption that the no nation (in the normal response) to a Surprise Attack (like the 1973 Yom Kipper War), or a border troop massing in preparation for an attack (like the 1967 War) are not a provokation; and that the outcome must result in the Arab/Palestinians allowed to instigate hostilities with no repercussion, no reparation, and no blame. The ICJ assumes that a territory may only be won by force if the Arab wins it. But if the Arab instigates a war, they can not lose territory or face reprisal. The ICJ makes the tacit approval that the Palestinian can openly conduct any type of (for an indefinite period) warfare, against any type of target, because Israel is not legitimate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[proudveteran06]

"Palestine sets a good example for other countries in the region."

"Were you drunk when you typed this?"

You know that he's...he's ...he's -- he's gotta 'save-face.' he's from a different mindset. see that he said "Palestine." ...and his other chilling thoughts...very different from the norm (i.e., "what 'good example' palestine sets" - hope he rattles off a few).

You will never get any answers from the old man.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The International Court Of Justice Opinion finds East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel, meaning Israel has no sovereignty rights in those lands. This issue has been decided by the highest court in the world in an almost unanimous decision.

 

[toastman]

The International Court Of Justice Opinion finds East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel, meaning Israel has no sovereignty rights in those lands. This issue has been decided by the highest court in the world in an almost unanimous decision.

What does that have to do with the fact the Israel has borders ??
Stop deflecting Nazi slut

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

IF a person fails to see the connection between these two issues, I do not know how to help them.

 

[toastman]

You are speaking of yourself, of course.
You haven't proved anything concernig Israels borders.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You are speaking of yourself, of course.
You haven't proved anything concernig Israels borders.

WHY should I prove anything about Israels borders? I never made any claim about them.

 

[toastman]

You are speaking of yourself, of course.
You haven't proved anything concernig Israels borders.

WHY should I prove anything about Israels borders? I never made any claim about them.

You were quoted earlier saying Israel has no borders, but you didnt back it up with any viable information. Aren't you a lawyer?

 

[Hossfly]

The International Court Of Justice Opinion finds East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel, meaning Israel has no sovereignty rights in those lands. This issue has been decided by the highest court in the world in an almost unanimous decision.

I realize that the international community considers Turkey occupying Northern Cyprus, but has the "highest court in the world" said anything about this? Has it said anything about China occupying Tibet? If they are silent on these issues, could you tell us why they are only focusing on Israel? After all, you seem to be the expert here on the "highest court in the world."