Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[P F Tinmore]

The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan. Upon its signing, the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba and the Gulf of Aqaba were officially designated as the borders between Israel and Jordan, and the border between Jordan and the territory occupied by Israel in 1967. For the latter, the agreement requires that the demarcation use a different presentation, and that it carry the following disclaimer:

"This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory."


Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From tour link:

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2012)

Indeed.

*yawn*

IsraCast: Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty

A permanent international border was established between the two countries. Furthermore, a process of normalization began, including exchange of diplomatic representatives and mutual agreements in the areas of trade, economy, tourism and mail.

A permanent international border was established between the two countries.

That is not what the treaty said.

 

[toastman]

From tour link:



Indeed.

*yawn*

IsraCast: Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty

A permanent international border was established between the two countries. Furthermore, a process of normalization began, including exchange of diplomatic representatives and mutual agreements in the areas of trade, economy, tourism and mail.

A permanent international border was established between the two countries.

That is not what the treaty said.

That is what the treaty lead to

 

[P F Tinmore]

*yawn*

IsraCast: Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty

A permanent international border was established between the two countries. Furthermore, a process of normalization began, including exchange of diplomatic representatives and mutual agreements in the areas of trade, economy, tourism and mail.

A permanent international border was established between the two countries.

That is not what the treaty said.

That is what the treaty lead to

Explain.

 

[toastman]

I posted a link. Its not my fault you cant read

 

[P F Tinmore]

I posted a link. Its not my fault you cant read

I read the link. Apparently you did not.

 

[toastman]

Are we really going to play this game again ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are we really going to play this game again ?

It is your game, Play away.

Where in your link does it say that Israel has borders?

 

[toastman]

Are we really going to play this game again ?

It is your game, Play away.

Where in your link does it say that Israel has borders?

Actually it's your game, you're the one who claimed Israel has no borders, even after Rocco provided you with indisputable evidence that says otherwise. Now you're just playing this stupid game. I asked you for a link yesterday to back up your claim, and your answer was "look it up yourself".
That is the answer of someone who has been defeated

 

[toastman]

Are we really going to play this game again ?

It is your game, Play away.

Where in your link does it say that Israel has borders?

Where in your link does it say that the Palestinians have to be in agreement with Israel over the borders in order for the borders to be legit. OH wait, you didn't provide a link.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can twist your own interpretation on the boundary issue. But your objection does not alter the reality.

Are we really going to play this game again ?

It is your game, Play away.

Where in your link does it say that Israel has borders?

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

The international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949.

The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

You can mince words, quibble with phrases, deny all, challenge this and that, but at the end of the day, there are "international boundaries;" that conform to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and are registered with the UN in the very same fashion as any other treaty.

The objection of the third party non-state Palestinian is of no consequence; except to once again reaffirm that Palestinians challenge international common law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

So you're saying that the peace treaties mean absolutely nothing , gotcha !

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?

 

[kvetch]

toastie

a thief like you knows only the borders of how much theft he can get away with

and that is and always has been israeli govt policy, and yours

you fool no one

no link is required except with truth and justice; both so far away from your toasted apology for a brain it might as well be on jupiter

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can twist your own interpretation on the boundary issue. But your objection does not alter the reality.

Are we really going to play this game again ?

It is your game, Play away.

Where in your link does it say that Israel has borders?

The international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949.

The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

You can mince words, quibble with phrases, deny all, challenge this and that, but at the end of the day, there are "international boundaries;" that conform to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and are registered with the UN in the very same fashion as any other treaty.

The objection of the third party non-state Palestinian is of no consequence; except to once again reaffirm that Palestinians challenge international common law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Treaties are simply agreements between two nations , once again you ignore the reality that a treaty between two nations can give neither sovereignty rights in lands they have no sovereignty rights in. You cannot give away what you do not own, that is not that difficult of a concept to understand or It should not be, I should say. Further, my recollection is the tresties actually even address the fact they are not addressing the issues of the borders of a Palestinian State.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Introduction This is a good source addressing international legal issues, it also collects UN Resolutions and the link to the legal opinion on the Wall.

 

[Hossfly]

Introduction This is a good source addressing international legal issues, it also collects UN Resolutions and the link to the legal opinion on the Wall.

Good job,Sherri! Now read some of those International laws to see how they differ from your opinionated fantasies.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Relevant Major Principles of International Law - (1) Acquisition of Territory by Military Conquest is Illegal, and gaining sovereignty via military occupation is illegal. The only legal reason for a military action or occupation is self-defense, and it is generally thought that legal occupations would be only short-term because they would only be for the purpose of self-defense:RELEVANT PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWOne of the basic principles of international law is that military action that leads to acquisition of territory or gaining of sovereignty is illegal.Only if military action is in self-defense, then it is considered legal, because, for one thing, it is obviously fighting off an illegal aggressive military action.An important expression of this basic principle can be found in the*Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970), which lists examples of illegal motivations for military action (for example to settle disagreements or for revenge). Then in the UN Charter it says that countries do have the right to defend themselves.Then the principle that acquisition of land by force or gaining of sovereignty by occupation are illegal are found verified in the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and finally the Geneva Convention Protocols I of 1977.And it is generally accepted that military occupations which are only for the purpose of self-defense will be temporary, because they are only implemented for the sake of securing peace and security, and thus will come to an end once that has been achieved. But it is the prolonged nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine that Israelis claim calls for a reinterpretation of numbers of international laws and legal principles. RELEVANT LAWS & RESPONSES are set forth in the discussion. Legal Military Action

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

RELEVANT QUOTES FROM TEXTUN Charter (1945), article 2, para. 4:Article 2.*The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.Paragraph 4.*All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970), Principle 1RINCIPLE I:*The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.Hague Regulations IV (1907), articles 43 & 55:Article 43.*The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.Article 55.*The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 54:Article 47.*Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.Article 54.*The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience. Legal Military Action

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

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.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

THIS is the portions of the Intl Court Of Justice Opinion (the highest legal intl authority in our world) that concludes East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel, let us see how they reached this finding. I WILL address the parts of the Opinion that deal with this a 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. http://www.israellawresourcecenter....nion2003/studyguides/icj2003sglegalstatus.htm

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

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.