The events in Jerusalem

[Hollie]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

OK, a very serious question...

How does that enter into the question of Palestine... Did you answer those simple questions.

I have over and over. Taking land in war is a war crime. Your 'logic' works only from neanderthal times until civilization finally became awake after WWII. Read the Nuremberg principles if you still don't get it.

(COMMENT)

When was Israel at War with the Arab Palestinians?

If you are taking about:

• The 1948 War of independence: The conflict was between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt... And there were the four Armistice Agreements with these parties to the conflict; and there are currently two peace treaties, a letter agreement on the border with the Lebanese, and nothing with the Syrians yet.

• If you are talking about the 1967 Six Day War, same answer.

• If you are talking about the Sneak Attack in 1973 Yom Kipper War, and yes this is where the Egyptian Third Army was encircled. All those disputes are wiped clean now.​

Where were the Palestinians in all this... As usual, nowhere as a party to the conflict. NO one took any territory from the Palestinians. And the conflicts, that would have effected the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were settled by treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians.

(FRAUDULENT CLAIM)

You cannot make the claim that the Israelis took anything from the Arab Palestinians in war. And you cannot piggyback on the Egyptians and Jordanians because Israel has settled the dispute on the loss to Israel of the Military Governorship over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Annexed Territory by Jordan that was finally abandon into the hands of the Israelis.

Your claim is fraudulent and the Arab-Palestinian people should be made to pay reparations for the seven decade long temper tantrum they have, and continue with, in the pursuit of this frivolous allegation.

Most Respectfully.
R

There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

You need to keep up. Hamas has a “military wing” and holds fashion shows wherein those little rogues march around in military style uniforms and fashionable ski masks,

Palestine has no military. There are some political parties that have civilian militias. None of them are paid by or under the control of the government.

I do wish you would instruct Hamas that you are the sole politburo mouthpiece for that organization.

Will Hamas surrender Qassam Brigades to Abbas?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

The above is further demonstration why your legal opinions always inspire FPE’s (Face Palm Episodes). Why do you insist on trying to re-write the historical record?

Where does the historical record refute my post?

Links?

First your Links from a non-Arab site.

The Treaty of Lauanne is an Arab site?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

The above is further demonstration why your legal opinions always inspire FPE’s (Face Palm Episodes). Why do you insist on trying to re-write the historical record?

Where does the historical record refute my post?

Links?

First your Links from a non-Arab site.

The Treaty of Lauanne is an Arab site?

The Treaty is comprised of many documents that I doubt you have mastered.
We have gone through this already so feel free to humiliate yourself yet again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

 

[Hollie]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

View attachment 165728
​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine. It doesn't matter if it was occupied by the Britain, Jordan, or Israel. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.

 

[Indeependent]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

None...Jordan lost their land in the 1948 war that you refuse to recognize.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

View attachment 165728
​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine. It doesn't matter if it was occupied by the Britain, Jordan, or Israel. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Pal’istan was never anything more than a loosely defined geographic area. You really do have a strange fascination with a geographic area to which you have ascribed some rather magical attributes.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

View attachment 165728
​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine. It doesn't matter if it was occupied by the Britain, Jordan, or Israel. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

It is a region. Which got that name because the Romans got pissed off with the Jews after the 135 Bar Kochba revolt and renamed the then Roman Province of Judea as Palestine. A region. Not a country. Not anywhere where anyone was a citizen of any place.

And it remained that way, a Region with no citizens but only people who inhabited it until the Ottomans lost WWI and all the land they owned was split into Mandates.

The mandate for Palestine was one of them. The ancient homeland of the Jewish people, which was to be given back to them.

Of course, as we know now, the British had other ideas because it was just...Jews....and gave most of it to one Arab tribe. And then tried to keep the rest of it.

So, a country while Jews had sovereignty over the land until 135 CE.
NOT a country after that until 1948 when the Jews recreated their Nation.

Simple.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.

Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.

 

[Indeependent]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

View attachment 165728
​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine. It doesn't matter if it was occupied by the Britain, Jordan, or Israel. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

It is a region. Which got that name because the Romans got pissed off with the Jews after the 135 Bar Kochba revolt and renamed the then Roman Province of Judea as Palestine. A region. Not a country. Not anywhere where anyone was a citizen of any place.

And it remained that way, a Region with no citizens but only people who inhabited it until the Ottomans lost WWI and all the land they owned was split into Mandates.

The mandate for Palestine was one of them. The ancient homeland of the Jewish people, which was to be given back to them.

Of course, as we know now, the British had other ideas because it was just...Jews....and gave most of it to one Arab tribe. And then tried to keep the rest of it.

So, a country while Jews had sovereignty over the land until 135 CE.
NOT a country after that until 1948 when the Jews recreated their Nation.

Simple.

Are you trying to make P F Retard’s brain explode?

 

[Indeependent]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.

Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.

P F Retard gets paid or he’s the dumbest piece of dung in history.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

View attachment 165728
​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine. It doesn't matter if it was occupied by the Britain, Jordan, or Israel. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

It is a region. Which got that name because the Romans got pissed off with the Jews after the 135 Bar Kochba revolt and renamed the then Roman Province of Judea as Palestine. A region. Not a country. Not anywhere where anyone was a citizen of any place.

And it remained that way, a Region with no citizens but only people who inhabited it until the Ottomans lost WWI and all the land they owned was split into Mandates.

The mandate for Palestine was one of them. The ancient homeland of the Jewish people, which was to be given back to them.

Of course, as we know now, the British had other ideas because it was just...Jews....and gave most of it to one Arab tribe. And then tried to keep the rest of it.

So, a country while Jews had sovereignty over the land until 135 CE.
NOT a country after that until 1948 when the Jews recreated their Nation.

Simple.

Are you trying to make P F Retard’s brain explode?

Oh, is there a brain in there?
I thought it was just an empty box, or something like it?
Uhmmm, something to think about

 

[Indeependent]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is an assumption that someone told you. But, the argument can be made that the territories, currently under the administration of the Israelis, are not "occupied" in the technical sense.

.
There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

(COMMENT)

An argument can be made that the territories that the Arab Palestinians claim to belong to them, are NOT really theirs at all.

View attachment 165728
​

Do you see the flaw in the Arab Palestinian Logic. It turns out that the territory could be an Israel Protectorate, just like American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Whether or not you consider the West Bank to have been sovereign territory of the Jordanian, or occupied territory of an indeterminate nature, it was never sovereign Arab Palestinian territory. And, without regard to what the Arab Palestinian may hold to be true, it was (either formerly occupied by, or annexed by the) under the effective (total) control of the Jordanians. And in 1967, that control was acquired by the Israeli and confirmed in 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank. When that happened that left the indeterminate territory into the hands of the effective control of the Israelis. The West Bank may be a rouge Province of Israel. But no matter what it is, (with the exception of Area "A") it was territory for which the Arab Palestinians claim as their territory, that they never had control of in the first place.

Jerusalem was territory of an indeterminate nature. Once under the control of the Jordanians, and then under the control of the Israeli; but never under the control of the Arab Palestinians. If it was never under the control of the Arab Palestinians, no matter how the cry and whine, the Israelis cannot take from the Arab Palestinians something they never had in the first place.

Who is stealing what. The Arab Palestinians are trying to claim that Israel effective control or annexation was theirs. I ask when?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine. It doesn't matter if it was occupied by the Britain, Jordan, or Israel. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

It is a region. Which got that name because the Romans got pissed off with the Jews after the 135 Bar Kochba revolt and renamed the then Roman Province of Judea as Palestine. A region. Not a country. Not anywhere where anyone was a citizen of any place.

And it remained that way, a Region with no citizens but only people who inhabited it until the Ottomans lost WWI and all the land they owned was split into Mandates.

The mandate for Palestine was one of them. The ancient homeland of the Jewish people, which was to be given back to them.

Of course, as we know now, the British had other ideas because it was just...Jews....and gave most of it to one Arab tribe. And then tried to keep the rest of it.

So, a country while Jews had sovereignty over the land until 135 CE.
NOT a country after that until 1948 when the Jews recreated their Nation.

Simple.

Are you trying to make P F Retard’s brain explode?

Oh, is there a brain in there?
I thought it was just an empty box, or something like it?
Uhmmm, something to think about

A parrot, perhaps?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.

Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.

Still dodging the question, huh?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.

Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.

Still dodging the question, huh?

Your "question" has been answered from here to eternity.
I guess we are just helping you spend your time, since you have nothing else to do.
So, dodging which one of your empty box questions.....again?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.

OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?

I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex has formed.

Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.

Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.

Still dodging the question, huh?

Which State are the Palestinians citizens of?

NONE, as there is no State of Palestine.
But according to Abba's maps, it is the whole State of Israel, with Gaza and Judea and Samaria included.
Isn't he sweet in including Israel in the "State of Palestine" which does not exist?

Now, some Arabs are citizens of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.

Would you like to tell us again that the Palestinians are citizens of a place called Palestine?