Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You named four people out of millions on Israelis. I mean really?
Also, Israel and Israelis are going nowhere , and I know that kills you inside. Can’t deal with it? Go cry to David Duke...
I named four who happen to be the leaders of the Apartheid Entity...
The point you guys keep making is that the Zionists have a right to that land because they were there first. But they all came from Europe.
lol Waiting the Jews out has not been a winning strategy for Palestinians so far. The fact is they homicide rate in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria is less than half that of the US, and it is much safer to live in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria than to live in most large US cities.
The fact that most of the Zionist Entity's good will in the rest of the world has evaporated tells me that waiting them out is just fine. They are becoming as much of an international pariah as South Africa was before Apartheid fell.
When they find that they are living next door to Palestinians, they will move.Israel has one person, one vote now. One person, one vote rarely occurs in your Islamist paradises.Well, that’s the problem isn’t it? Your tedious, flaming tirades about “send them-there Jooooos back” doesn’t really come with a plan.
Basically, your cut and paste tirades are just pointless, right?
Sure there's a plan. One Person. One Vote. Then the Jews can decide if they want to live with Muslim leaders when they win the majority, or go back to Europe where they came from. I couldn't really care which they do at that point.
What's your plan for exporting Jews to Europe?
Which part is not true?The bottom line is that conquest is illegal. Occupations cannot annex occupied territory. They do not acquire sovereignty.RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, P F Tinmore, et al,
This is another one of those tricky worded and nonbinding snowflakes that the Propaganda Machine generates periodically.
(COMMENT)Yes it does.◈ The UN does not consider any territory in the Middle East to be a NSGT.
3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution - Question of Palestine
As I said in Posting #694 (supra),
Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) said:C-24 Mandate
-------------------------
In accordance with GA resolution 1654 (XVI), the C-24 was mandated to →
(i) examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, hereafter referred to as the "Declaration") andThe C-24 annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration is applicable. It also hears statements from representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at its annual sessions, dispatches visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories and annually organizes regional seminars.
(ii) to make suggestions and recommendations on the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962.
There is a Catch 22 here for the Arab Palestinian Leadership. IF they claim that they are a NSGT under the colonial domination of Israel, THEN the Arab Palestinians cannot have a sovereign state.
Dictionary of Modem Legal Usage said:nation; state. → These two words have different meanings.
◈ A nation is a group of people inhabiting a defined territory, that group being distinct from other groups of people by the fact of its having allegiance to a single government exercising jurisdiction directly over each individual in the group.
◈ The state, by contrast, is the system of rules—or the machinery—by which jurisdiction is exercised over individuals within the group.
It is therefore “illogical and confusing to use the terms ‘State’ and ‘Nation’ as though they were interchangeable, although this is frequently done. Thus we refer to the ‘United Nations' although this is in fact an organization of States.”
• SOURCE LINK •
• SOURCE (Free) .pdf •
You will notice that both of these terms, having a common theme, referring to either a:
◈ "a single government exercising jurisdiction directly over each individual in the group."
◈ "which jurisdiction is exercised over individuals within the group."
IF the State of Palestine has either more than one "system of rules—or the machinery" [Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) -- and -- Palestinian Authority (PA)] THEN it cannot be a "nation."
IF the State of Palestine does not exercise jurisdiction directly over each individual in the group [Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) • Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control) • Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)] THEN it cannot be a "state."
It cannot be the case that the State of Palestine can claim both to be a State or a Nation - and - also claim to be a Non-Self Governing Territory (NSGT) simultaneously.
It does not matter what the General Assembly Resolution might say, a GA Resolution cannot change International Law or Customary Interpretation.
Most Respectfully,
R
Territory and sovereignty remains in the hands of the permanent population.
Unsupported opinion.
You named four people out of millions on Israelis. I mean really?
Also, Israel and Israelis are going nowhere , and I know that kills you inside. Can’t deal with it? Go cry to David Duke...
I named four who happen to be the leaders of the Apartheid Entity...
The point you guys keep making is that the Zionists have a right to that land because they were there first. But they all came from Europe.
lol Waiting the Jews out has not been a winning strategy for Palestinians so far. The fact is they homicide rate in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria is less than half that of the US, and it is much safer to live in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria than to live in most large US cities.
The fact that most of the Zionist Entity's good will in the rest of the world has evaporated tells me that waiting them out is just fine. They are becoming as much of an international pariah as South Africa was before Apartheid fell.
Did that slogan come from the prayer leader at your madrassah?
Otherwise, no, “they” did not all come from Europe. Your uneducated, flaming tirades really speak to your utter lack of credibility. You even stumble over basic definitions.
Isn't it just awful Joe how those "Zionists from Europe" claim it's Israel's land just because the Jews were there first & the overwhelming number of today's Palestinians have no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole.
Did that slogan come from the prayer leader at your madrassah?
Otherwise, no, “they” did not all come from Europe. Your uneducated, flaming tirades really speak to your utter lack of credibility. You even stumble over basic definitions.
Yawn, honey, I'm an atheist. Zionism offends me because the notion of people using "God" as an excuse for bad behavior offends me.
The stupidity that we are throwing a whole section of the world into turmoil because you guys are under the delusion that your magic sky pixie loves you the very best is silly. You all should have figured that out when Hitler turned half of you into lampshades. There is no God, he doesn't care about you because he's too busy not existing.
Living next to people who want to kill you because God said so is just... stupid.
Isn't it just awful Joe how those "Zionists from Europe" claim it's Israel's land just because the Jews were there first & the overwhelming number of today's Palestinians have no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole.
This is where you are a little confused. The Zionists from Europe had nothing in common with the people who lived there 2000 years ago other than a corrupted version of their religion. Christianity and Islam are equally corrupted versions of that religion.
It would be like saying that Japanese people have a right to own Northern India, because, Gosh darn, the people who lived there back then were Buddhists, just like they are. That's how absurd it is.
No. You are just a piece of human filth who hates Jews.Did that slogan come from the prayer leader at your madrassah?
Otherwise, no, “they” did not all come from Europe. Your uneducated, flaming tirades really speak to your utter lack of credibility. You even stumble over basic definitions.
Yawn, honey, I'm an atheist. Zionism offends me because the notion of people using "God" as an excuse for bad behavior offends me.
The stupidity that we are throwing a whole section of the world into turmoil because you guys are under the delusion that your magic sky pixie loves you the very best is silly. You all should have figured that out when Hitler turned half of you into lampshades. There is no God, he doesn't care about you because he's too busy not existing.
Living next to people who want to kill you because God said so is just... stupid.
Isn't it just awful Joe how those "Zionists from Europe" claim it's Israel's land just because the Jews were there first & the overwhelming number of today's Palestinians have no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole.
This is where you are a little confused. The Zionists from Europe had nothing in common with the people who lived there 2000 years ago other than a corrupted version of their religion. Christianity and Islam are equally corrupted versions of that religion.
It would be like saying that Japanese people have a right to own Northern India, because, Gosh darn, the people who lived there back then were Buddhists, just like they are. That's how absurd it is.
Article 2(4) • Chapter I • Purpose and Principles • UN Charter said: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.
Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 said:Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
The bottom line is that conquest is illegal. Occupations cannot annex occupied territory. They do not acquire sovereignty.
Territory and sovereignty remanms in the hands of the permanent population.
(COMMENT)Which part is not true?
Links?
Of course not. You are just shoveling Israeli crap.
Article 22 • Part III • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court said:Nullum crimen sine lege
1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in
question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the
Court.
2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by
analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the
person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under
international law independently of this Statute.
Page 596 • ENCYCLOPÆDIC DICTIONARY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW said:‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B,
No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687 , ‘
Disengagement from the West Bank said:On July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
lol Are you Rip Van Winkle? Years ago what you say was true, but today Israel's foreign relations today improve everyday. Some European nations are considering moving their embassies to Jerusalem and several European countries are blocking the EU's anti Israel policies. Even Arab countries are seeking improved trade and diplomatic relations with Israel. Today, the Palestinians have no leverage at all to bargain with.You named four people out of millions on Israelis. I mean really?
Also, Israel and Israelis are going nowhere , and I know that kills you inside. Can’t deal with it? Go cry to David Duke...
I named four who happen to be the leaders of the Apartheid Entity...
The point you guys keep making is that the Zionists have a right to that land because they were there first. But they all came from Europe.
lol Waiting the Jews out has not been a winning strategy for Palestinians so far. The fact is they homicide rate in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria is less than half that of the US, and it is much safer to live in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria than to live in most large US cities.
The fact that most of the Zionist Entity's good will in the rest of the world has evaporated tells me that waiting them out is just fine. They are becoming as much of an international pariah as South Africa was before Apartheid fell.
You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
International law makes no distinction between aggressive or defensive conquest. It is just illegal.Many have claimed that the "anti-conquest norm" and associated corollaries are so important that in the view is held → that even conquest through lawful self-defense (in this case Israel) against an aggressor (principally Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) is forbidden. But the International Law does not say that.
You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.
Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
International pariah? Really? My goodness you know even less about Israel than I thought! The opinion of you and your friends do not represent what most people think.You named four people out of millions on Israelis. I mean really?
Also, Israel and Israelis are going nowhere , and I know that kills you inside. Can’t deal with it? Go cry to David Duke...
I named four who happen to be the leaders of the Apartheid Entity...
The point you guys keep making is that the Zionists have a right to that land because they were there first. But they all came from Europe.
lol Waiting the Jews out has not been a winning strategy for Palestinians so far. The fact is they homicide rate in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria is less than half that of the US, and it is much safer to live in Israel, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria than to live in most large US cities.
The fact that most of the Zionist Entity's good will in the rest of the world has evaporated tells me that waiting them out is just fine. They are becoming as much of an international pariah as South Africa was before Apartheid fell.
You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
Link?
You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
Link?
No link?You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
Link?
Another whiny non-response.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.
No link?You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
Link?
Another whiny non-response.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.
Of course not.
International law makes no distinction between aggressive or defensive conquest. It is just illegal.Many have claimed that the "anti-conquest norm" and associated corollaries are so important that in the view is held → that even conquest through lawful self-defense (in this case Israel) against an aggressor (principally Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) is forbidden. But the International Law does not say that.
BTW, if the Arab countries lost the 1948 war:
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?
No link?You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
Link?
Another whiny non-response.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.
Of course not.
You have failed to provide links for as long as I can remember for basically anything I ask you, yet you have the nerve to ask other people for links ?No link?You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.Remembering of course, that there are other factors involved in the contemporary histories of the former sovereign Jordanian territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.
In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."
"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.Another bullshit Israeli talking point."Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.
Link?
Another whiny non-response.
"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.
Of course not.
