Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, for heaven's sake.

You cannot eliminate a sovereignty (country/nation) that never existed.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Link?

(COMMENT)

This is rediculase. Just howmam I going to actually do this.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
SOURCE: • Comprehensive Collections of Logical Fallacies •

Did the Arab Palestinian ever establish soveriegnty (supreme political authority)?

◈ Where and when?​

It is my understanding that the Arab Palestinians have not established such control over any territory that could be describe as sovereignty. Gaza was relinquished to them (the Arab Palestinians did not actually establish it) and Area "A" (by mutual agreement).

It is my understanding that the Arab Higher Committee had --- and later the Arab Palestinians rejected any and all offers at participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is my understanding that the Arab Higher Committee had --- and later the Arab Palestinians rejected any and all offers at participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

That required them to sign on to the settler colonial project. Of course that was not acceptable.

You keep saying that the Palestinians, who were under military occupation, did not acquire physical control. That is not required.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The fact that foreign military powers have prevented the exercise of their rights do not negate their rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, for heaven's sake.

You cannot eliminate a sovereignty (country/nation) that never existed.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Link?

(COMMENT)

This is rediculase. Just howmam I going to actually do this.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
SOURCE: • Comprehensive Collections of Logical Fallacies •

Did the Arab Palestinian ever establish soveriegnty (supreme political authority)?

◈ Where and when?​

It is my understanding that the Arab Palestinians have not established such control over any territory that could be describe as sovereignty. Gaza was relinquished to them (the Arab Palestinians did not actually establish it) and Area "A" (by mutual agreement).

It is my understanding that the Arab Higher Committee had --- and later the Arab Palestinians rejected any and all offers at participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

This is rediculase. Just howmam I going to actually do this.

You said it. You prove it.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, for heaven's sake.

You cannot eliminate a sovereignty (country/nation) that never existed.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Link?

(COMMENT)

This is rediculase. Just howmam I going to actually do this.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
SOURCE: • Comprehensive Collections of Logical Fallacies •

Did the Arab Palestinian ever establish soveriegnty (supreme political authority)?

◈ Where and when?​

It is my understanding that the Arab Palestinians have not established such control over any territory that could be describe as sovereignty. Gaza was relinquished to them (the Arab Palestinians did not actually establish it) and Area "A" (by mutual agreement).

It is my understanding that the Arab Higher Committee had --- and later the Arab Palestinians rejected any and all offers at participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is my understanding that the Arab Higher Committee had --- and later the Arab Palestinians rejected any and all offers at participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

That required them to sign on to the settler colonial project. Of course that was not acceptable.

You keep saying that the Palestinians, who were under military occupation, did not acquire physical control. That is not required.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The fact that foreign military powers have prevented the exercise of their rights do not negate their rights.

Rocco is neither negating nor denying the Arab Palestinian RIGHT to self-governance. He is arguing that they are not self-governing (under the normal criteria for sovereignty) in point of actual fact.

YOU seem to be arguing that the Arab Palestinians not only lack the actual fact of self-governance or sovereignty but further actually REFUSE self-governance and sovereignty. And you don't seem to see that as self-defeating.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, that is true.

That required them to sign on to the settler colonial project. Of course that was not acceptable.

You keep saying that the Palestinians, who were under military occupation, did not acquire physical control. That is not required.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The fact that foreign military powers have prevented the exercise of their rights do not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

To be a state (otherwise it Articles do not apply) is to be a competent authority. More importantly, in order for the Arab Palestinians to have been a "state" under the Montevideo Treaty (Rights and Duties), at some point in time, they would have had to HAVE: should possess (have as belonging to one; own) the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;

✦ The Arab Palestinians, even today, do not have a permanent population.​

b ) a defined territory;

✦ Even today, much less earlier, the Arab Palestinians must have a defined territory. Hell that is one of the issues under the Permanent Status of Negotiation. (Remember Israel has agreed upon international boundaries.​

c ) government; and

✦ When Israel was the only country with effective control over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jersualem, the Arab Palestinians did not even have a government. Not in 1967 and not in 1988 when Jordan abandon it.​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

✦ It was only in 2012, that President Abbas started signing treaties. The Arab Palestinians only have control over Area "A."​

I ask again, when you say that the Arab Palestinians have a country, what are you talking about. I think that there is an illusion of a country. But certainly, it is an illusion of sovereignty and control.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, that is true.

That required them to sign on to the settler colonial project. Of course that was not acceptable.

You keep saying that the Palestinians, who were under military occupation, did not acquire physical control. That is not required.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The fact that foreign military powers have prevented the exercise of their rights do not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

To be a state (otherwise it Articles do not apply) is to be a competent authority. More importantly, in order for the Arab Palestinians to have been a "state" under the Montevideo Treaty (Rights and Duties), at some point in time, they would have had to HAVE: should possess (have as belonging to one; own) the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;

✦ The Arab Palestinians, even today, do not have a permanent population.​

b ) a defined territory;

✦ Even today, much less earlier, the Arab Palestinians must have a defined territory. Hell that is one of the issues under the Permanent Status of Negotiation. (Remember Israel has agreed upon international boundaries.​

c ) government; and

✦ When Israel was the only country with effective control over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jersualem, the Arab Palestinians did not even have a government. Not in 1967 and not in 1988 when Jordan abandon it.​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

✦ It was only in 2012, that President Abbas started signing treaties. The Arab Palestinians only have control over Area "A."​

I ask again, when you say that the Arab Palestinians have a country, what are you talking about. I think that there is an illusion of a country. But certainly, it is an illusion of sovereignty and control.

Most Respectfully,
R

III. ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE: STATEHOOD AS AFFECTED BY BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION OF A STATE'S TERRITORY

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, that is true.

That required them to sign on to the settler colonial project. Of course that was not acceptable.

You keep saying that the Palestinians, who were under military occupation, did not acquire physical control. That is not required.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The fact that foreign military powers have prevented the exercise of their rights do not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

To be a state (otherwise it Articles do not apply) is to be a competent authority. More importantly, in order for the Arab Palestinians to have been a "state" under the Montevideo Treaty (Rights and Duties), at some point in time, they would have had to HAVE: should possess (have as belonging to one; own) the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;

✦ The Arab Palestinians, even today, do not have a permanent population.​

b ) a defined territory;

✦ Even today, much less earlier, the Arab Palestinians must have a defined territory. Hell that is one of the issues under the Permanent Status of Negotiation. (Remember Israel has agreed upon international boundaries.​

c ) government; and

✦ When Israel was the only country with effective control over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jersualem, the Arab Palestinians did not even have a government. Not in 1967 and not in 1988 when Jordan abandon it.​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

✦ It was only in 2012, that President Abbas started signing treaties. The Arab Palestinians only have control over Area "A."​

I ask again, when you say that the Arab Palestinians have a country, what are you talking about. I think that there is an illusion of a country. But certainly, it is an illusion of sovereignty and control.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no actual violation of Customary or International Humanitarian Law. While a large number of opinions have been made both "pro" and "con" → no one actually cites a "TRUE LAW." In August 1988, Israel came to be the only STATE to have any kind of control at all over the territories. No other STATE made claim.

III. ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE: STATEHOOD AS AFFECTED BY BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION OF A STATE'S TERRITORY

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians did not have a "STATE" when Israel was an Occupation force.

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No, not at all.

I have, on many occasions, made it clear that Israeli Occupation is NOT = Sovereignty. But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them. It is NOT a true "occupation" of Palestinian territory (it was never theirs to begin with). It is a territory under A/RES/2625 (III):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

For each opinion on one side of the issue, there is an equal number of opinions on the opposite side of the issue.

"Navigation Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another. Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no actual violation of Customary or International Humanitarian Law. While a large number of opinions have been made both "pro" and "con" → no one actually cites a "TRUE LAW." In August 1988, Israel came to be the only STATE to have any kind of control at all over the territories. No other STATE made claim.

III. ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE: STATEHOOD AS AFFECTED BY BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION OF A STATE'S TERRITORY

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians did not have a "STATE" when Israel was an Occupation force.

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No, not at all.

I have, on many occasions, made it clear that Israeli Occupation is NOT = Sovereignty. But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them. It is NOT a true "occupation" of Palestinian territory (it was never theirs to begin with). It is a territory under A/RES/2625 (III):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

For each opinion on one side of the issue, there is an equal number of opinions on the opposite side of the issue.

"Navigation Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another. Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.

When was it ever peaceful?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no actual violation of Customary or International Humanitarian Law. While a large number of opinions have been made both "pro" and "con" → no one actually cites a "TRUE LAW." In August 1988, Israel came to be the only STATE to have any kind of control at all over the territories. No other STATE made claim.

III. ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE: STATEHOOD AS AFFECTED BY BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION OF A STATE'S TERRITORY

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians did not have a "STATE" when Israel was an Occupation force.

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No, not at all.

I have, on many occasions, made it clear that Israeli Occupation is NOT = Sovereignty. But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them. It is NOT a true "occupation" of Palestinian territory (it was never theirs to begin with). It is a territory under A/RES/2625 (III):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

For each opinion on one side of the issue, there is an equal number of opinions on the opposite side of the issue.

"Navigation Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another. Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them.

You are still confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

 

[rylah]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no actual violation of Customary or International Humanitarian Law. While a large number of opinions have been made both "pro" and "con" → no one actually cites a "TRUE LAW." In August 1988, Israel came to be the only STATE to have any kind of control at all over the territories. No other STATE made claim.

III. ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE: STATEHOOD AS AFFECTED BY BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION OF A STATE'S TERRITORY

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians did not have a "STATE" when Israel was an Occupation force.

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No, not at all.

I have, on many occasions, made it clear that Israeli Occupation is NOT = Sovereignty. But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them. It is NOT a true "occupation" of Palestinian territory (it was never theirs to begin with). It is a territory under A/RES/2625 (III):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

For each opinion on one side of the issue, there is an equal number of opinions on the opposite side of the issue.

"Navigation Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another. Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them.

You are still confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

When Turks ruled the place was it military occupation or sovereignty?

 

[rylah]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no actual violation of Customary or International Humanitarian Law. While a large number of opinions have been made both "pro" and "con" → no one actually cites a "TRUE LAW." In August 1988, Israel came to be the only STATE to have any kind of control at all over the territories. No other STATE made claim.

III. ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE: STATEHOOD AS AFFECTED BY BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION OF A STATE'S TERRITORY

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians did not have a "STATE" when Israel was an Occupation force.

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No, not at all.

I have, on many occasions, made it clear that Israeli Occupation is NOT = Sovereignty. But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them. It is NOT a true "occupation" of Palestinian territory (it was never theirs to begin with). It is a territory under A/RES/2625 (III):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

For each opinion on one side of the issue, there is an equal number of opinions on the opposite side of the issue.

"Navigation Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another. Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.

When was it ever peaceful?

All up until the renewed wave of Arab Pogroms in the 1920's,
and then the peace agreements with the neighboring Arab states.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, and this is where it gets tricky.

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.

When was it ever peaceful?

(COMMENT)

Israel has implemented "annexation" only in a couple of cases, the best known are the Golan Heights, and a portion of Jerusalem. And in those two areas, it has been relatively peaceful.

But that is not a REAL issue, even among the many. In considering the discussion, the applicable REAL issue revolves around the Arab Palestinian demand that they are allowed to formalize their failed state that openly supports Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

⟴ International situation, events and conditions evolve much faster than do the development of applicable laws. For instance, Resolutions 17, 18 and 19 of the 1974-77 Diplomatic Conference culminated in the in 1989 amendments to Annex I to Protocol I (Regulations concerning identification) finally adopted on 30 November 1993 and came into force on 1 March 1994. In total, that was a 20-year process. And the concepts behind what happens in the reality of the modern day political-military (POL-MIL) world are not hard and fast. The rules that nations adopt are not politically mutual suicide pacts. Most nations, most of the time, exercise those options that are in their own best interest.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

I have to chuckle here. You don't really expect him to answer that?

But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them.

You are still confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

When Turks ruled the place was it military occupation or sovereignty?[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

Sovereign Control...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

I have to chuckle here. You don't really expect him to answer that?

But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them.

You are still confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

When Turks ruled the place was it military occupation or sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Sovereign Control...

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Good question. Do you think you'll get an answer?

What was it called when Jordan 'occupied' the WB?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Abbas Hamideh, founder of Al-Awda, the Palestinian "right to return coalition" that wants to erase Israel, met with new member of Congress Rashida Tlaib:

(full article online)

Rashida Tlaib meets with terrorist supporter ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Making the case stronger to prohibit his entry is US law. The opening paragraph of America's Taylor Force law passed in 2018 reads: "The Palestinian Authority's practice of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror."

With this, the US has recognized Abbas' direct connection to terror.

The PA is in the unique position internationally being an entity that is fundamentally involved in terror yet the international community has not yet held them responsible and has not yet undertaken prosecution. It is time for the US to take a stand, not by merely withholding money from the PA, but by actively pursuing those responsible for funding terror. In the names of all the Americans whose murderers Abbas is rewarding because he believes they are "stars in the sky," the US must announce to the world that Abbas and all PA leaders involved in funding terror are not welcome in the United States. And should Abbas land on American soil this week the US should consider having him investigated under suspicion of heading the program that incentivized the murder of Americans.

(full article online)

PMW op-ed: Keep Abbas out of the US - PMW Bulletins

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

I have to chuckle here. You don't really expect him to answer that?

But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them.

You are still confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

When Turks ruled the place was it military occupation or sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Sovereign Control...

Most Respectfully,
R

Good question. Do you think you'll get an answer?

What was it called when Jordan 'occupied' the WB?[/QUOTE]

It was call RECOGNITION of JORDANIAN TERRITORY by the U.N.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Mindful, et al,

Good question. Do you think you'll get an answer?

What was it called when Jordan 'occupied' the WB?

(COMMENT)


Unification of the Two Banks

"On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion."

Called: "Constitutional Expansion of the Hashemite Kingdom" (AKA: Annexation). It was NOT Palestinian Territory but instead, Sovereign Jordanian Territory, without objection from the inhabitants.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

You are still confusing military control, i.e. occupation, with sovereignty. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Well, that is a much trickier and more complex question than you let on. You seem to be implying that occupations are permanently PROHIBITED from acquiring sovereignty, and that is just not true. The truth, is "it depends". It depends, in part, on the status of the territory prior to the occupation. It depends, in part, on any treaties or agreements made by concerned Parties. It depends, in part, on the reasons for the occupation, its duration and extent.

A military attack by one State, which has a fully functioning government and is recognized as sovereign, against another State, which has a fully functioning government and is recognized as sovereign, and where there is a treaty delineating a border between the two and which results in the military occupation of one State over territory of another State would be very different from, say, a defensive attack by one State, which has a fully functioning government and is recognized as sovereign, against an ungoverned, unrecognized, hostile population on terra nullius.

If you begin the conversation with silly ideas like "Israel doesn't exist" and "Palestine has been a state since 1924", you are going to misunderstand international law quite a bit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

I have to chuckle here. You don't really expect him to answer that?

But by the same token, if the Arab Palestinians never have any type of control over the territory, then nothing was taken from them.

You are still confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

When Turks ruled the place was it military occupation or sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Sovereign Control...

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
I don't know. However, the rules of the game have changed since then. Conquest was illegal in 1948.