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.
The only territory they have is what Israel gave them in the Oslo debacle, and that is only theirs as long as Israel decides it should be. The Palestinians betrayed the peace process and froze it, so what they have now is the best they will ever have, and it could quickly become a lot worse.None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?The Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.
What part of that confuses you?
“ International Borders” that you claim Israel never had because the U.N. did not have the “ authority to do so” were defined by the U. N. And we’re not accepted by the Arabs
What part of that confuses you?
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Who has control over Area "C"?
The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.
(COMMENT)The right of self determination has nothing to do with declaring whatever land you want belongs to you, which is what the PA applying sovereignty to area C is.
Applying sovereignty to Area "C" does not alter the "land" on which you (or anyone) want to belong. You can give it any name you want, → to the ground you stand on → it does not change with the establishment of sovereignty. If you move from the West Bank to Jordan, you are in transit between two sovereign territories. But again, the land that you belong to does not change on the basis of your movement. I can travel to Canada (all things being equal), but that does not change the fact that I belong to the land of my home in Ohio. IF by agreement between the US and Canada, Canada gains sovereignty over Ohio, → again the "land" I belong to → does not change.
REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF
SELF-DETERMINATION
Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession
Self-determination became officially sanctioned after 1945 when it was included in the United Nations Charter, though it applied to existing states, not to peoples or national groups. However, self-determination quickly evolved from a principle toa right, especially after the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples, when the term came to denote decolonization. Still, self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples.
(COMMENT)Furthermore, without a democratic process, it is impossible for people to exercise the right of self-determination.
Area "C" was designated in accordance with an agreement between the Israeli Government and the PalestineLiberation Organization (PLO). At that time, both parties agreed that Area "C" would be under full Israeli civil and security control. That means that Area "C" had never been under Arab Palestinian control. Area "C" was taken and occupied by the Israelis while in pursuit of retreating Forces of the Arab Legion. At that time, the West Bank was sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Israel did not occupy Arab Palestinian territory, but rather it occupied Jordanian.
State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty said:Section 2: Acquisition of Territory [12]
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.[13]
The 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.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called the original title, while in the second category is called a derivative title. Modes of the 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).[15]
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.[16] 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.[17]
By Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law,
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected];
[email protected]
[7] Text in 15 U.N.T.S. 295.
[8] Text in 480 U.N.T.S. 43.
[9] Text in 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
[10] Text in 21 I.L.M. (1982), 1261.
[11] Text in 402 U.N.T.S. 71.
[12] See generally Brownlie, pp. 126-57; and Shaw, pp. 417-43.
[13] See Shaw, p. 412.
[14] Bledsoe & Boczek, pp. 155-6.
[15] Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 149; and Shaw, p. 424.
[16] See Shaw, pp. 424 and 432-6; Brownlie, pp. 133-6.
[17] See Shaw, pp. 425-6
This has been presented in a number of ways. But I intentionally present this information in this form because (like most of the views I present on this topic set) → from an Arab League perspective (expressed by Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law).
...........View attachment 278409
Most Respectfully,
R
Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Under the Right of Self-Determination, even a Provisional Government can make a claim.
(COMMENT)So who could apply sovereignty for the Palestinians? Clearly, the PA can't since it does not represent the Palestinians people and clearly the PLO can't since it is not a government.
There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
It does not mean that it is going to work out for them. In the case of the All Palestine Government, they tried to claim a territory already declared independent by the National Council for the Jewish State (recognized as the Provisional Council Government). The Arab League attempted to take it by force. The Hashemite Kingdom took a piece and the Egyptian Government took a piece. The All Palestine Government got nothing.
........View attachment 277999
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
What part of that confuses you?
lol So you claim all legal rights come from the colonialist European countries?The right of self determination has nothing to do with declaring whatever land you want belongs to you, which is what the PA applying sovereignty to area C is. Furthermore, without a democratic process it is impossible for a people to exercise the right of self determination.RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Under the Right of Self-Determination, even a Provisional Government can make a claim.
(COMMENT)So who could apply sovereignty for the Palestinians? Clearly, the PA can't since it does not represent the Palestinians people and clearly the PLO can't since it is not a government.
There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
It does not mean that it is going to work out for them. In the case of the All Palestine Government, they tried to claim a territory already declared independent by the National Council for the Jewish State (recognized as the Provisional Council Government). The Arab League attempted to take it by force. The Hashemite Kingdom took a piece and the Egyptian Government took a piece. The All Palestine Government got nothing.
........View attachment 277999
Most Respectfully,
R
Wrong.
Palestine was defined by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and the will of the people was voted on at that time, under British supervision.
All of Palestine was they legally bound to the Palestinian, including what now is illegally called Israel.
There is no legal Jewish state because the UN did not have the authority to abrogate the Treaty of Sevres.
Nor can an immigrant Jewish minority legally take sovereignty from the indigenous Moslem majority.
People who write this shit know so littleThere's a good article, an opinion piece, that lays out a number of questions / scenarios for the Middle East with the eventual demise of the dictators of the West Bank and Iran. There are a number of similar articles around the web and most raise lots of alarms about the power struggles that will likely take place when the replacement dictators position for control. Especially with regard to the West Bank, it seems difficult to believe that anything less than a civil war will decide what group will eventually take a measure of control.
Dramatic changes ahead: US election, succession of Iranian, Palestinian leaders
His death, however, when it happens will create a vacuum that will bring to the fore a power struggle within the PA, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and Fatah (formerly the Palestinian National Liberation Movement), as well as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
This is not true. The Palestinian constitution is written to avoid power vacuums. If Abbas leaves office for any reason, the speaker of parliament is to temporarily assume the office of president and call for elections within 60 days.
Of course the US will not allow this to happen, they will just go in and fuck it up like they always do.
Maybe it's just me but a largely lawless enclave ruled by an islamic terrorist dictatorship doesn't have much incentive to follow rule of law.
Maybe the "Pal'istanian National Congress" will meet.
I think what you're unwilling to address is that the competing islamic terrorist franchises have no use for rule of law. With Iran seeing an opportunity to install a Shia army in the West Bank, they will have the assistance of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, at least until those competing Shia franchises go to war against each other.
It's just remarkable that you would propose the competing islamic terrorist franchises (especially those funded and controlled by Iran), are going to follow some irrelevant constitution.
That is silly because Palestinians have always been the most secular of all Arab nations. Much more so then religious fanatics like Israel, that actually tries to claim it is the Chosen People and that they have a right to murder in order to steal their so called Promised Land, which they never bought or paid for.
That’s all very melodramatic but hardly true. Your “secular” Arabs-Moslems make frequent appeals to “Allah” as a part of their religious war against Israelis.
Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?The Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.
What part of that confuses you?
“ International Borders” that you claim Israel never had because the U.N. did not have the “ authority to do so” were defined by the U. N. And we’re not accepted by the Arabs
What part of that confuses you?
The UN only has authority to moderate in disputes.
The UN had absolutely NO authority to take 55% of Palestine away from 70% of the population.
Israel is completely and utterly illegal, with no standing at all.
You should ‘do an islam” and wage your own personal gee-had.
As you point out, no one actually knows what self determination means today. Originally, as you pointed out it simply meant the peoples fo European colonies had the right to decide if they wanted independence, but it never had any practical application, since the European colonialists left only when they thought it was in their best interests and not because of any document UN diplomats cooked up. In any case, it has no application to the Palestinians at all, since they already have defined themselves as a people and Israel has no objection to it as long as they stay in areas A and B and do not attack Israelis.RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Who has control over Area "C"?
The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.
(COMMENT)The right of self determination has nothing to do with declaring whatever land you want belongs to you, which is what the PA applying sovereignty to area C is.
Applying sovereignty to Area "C" does not alter the "land" on which you (or anyone) want to belong. You can give it any name you want, → to the ground you stand on → it does not change with the establishment of sovereignty. If you move from the West Bank to Jordan, you are in transit between two sovereign territories. But again, the land that you belong to does not change on the basis of your movement. I can travel to Canada (all things being equal), but that does not change the fact that I belong to the land of my home in Ohio. IF by agreement between the US and Canada, Canada gains sovereignty over Ohio, → again the "land" I belong to → does not change.
REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF
SELF-DETERMINATION
Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession
Self-determination became officially sanctioned after 1945 when it was included in the United Nations Charter, though it applied to existing states, not to peoples or national groups. However, self-determination quickly evolved from a principle toa right, especially after the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples, when the term came to denote decolonization. Still, self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples.
(COMMENT)Furthermore, without a democratic process, it is impossible for people to exercise the right of self-determination.
Area "C" was designated in accordance with an agreement between the Israeli Government and the PalestineLiberation Organization (PLO). At that time, both parties agreed that Area "C" would be under full Israeli civil and security control. That means that Area "C" had never been under Arab Palestinian control. Area "C" was taken and occupied by the Israelis while in pursuit of retreating Forces of the Arab Legion. At that time, the West Bank was sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Israel did not occupy Arab Palestinian territory, but rather it occupied Jordanian.
State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty said:Section 2: Acquisition of Territory [12]
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.[13]
The 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.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called the original title, while in the second category is called a derivative title. Modes of the 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).[15]
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.[16] 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.[17]
By Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law,
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected];
[email protected]
[7] Text in 15 U.N.T.S. 295.
[8] Text in 480 U.N.T.S. 43.
[9] Text in 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
[10] Text in 21 I.L.M. (1982), 1261.
[11] Text in 402 U.N.T.S. 71.
[12] See generally Brownlie, pp. 126-57; and Shaw, pp. 417-43.
[13] See Shaw, p. 412.
[14] Bledsoe & Boczek, pp. 155-6.
[15] Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 149; and Shaw, p. 424.
[16] See Shaw, pp. 424 and 432-6; Brownlie, pp. 133-6.
[17] See Shaw, pp. 425-6
This has been presented in a number of ways. But I intentionally present this information in this form because (like most of the views I present on this topic set) → from an Arab League perspective (expressed by Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law).
...........View attachment 278409
Most Respectfully,
R
lol So you do think all rights should be defined by European colonialists."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Under the Right of Self-Determination, even a Provisional Government can make a claim.
(COMMENT)So who could apply sovereignty for the Palestinians? Clearly, the PA can't since it does not represent the Palestinians people and clearly the PLO can't since it is not a government.
There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
It does not mean that it is going to work out for them. In the case of the All Palestine Government, they tried to claim a territory already declared independent by the National Council for the Jewish State (recognized as the Provisional Council Government). The Arab League attempted to take it by force. The Hashemite Kingdom took a piece and the Egyptian Government took a piece. The All Palestine Government got nothing.
........View attachment 277999
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
The territory of Palestine was defined as an independent Moslem nation by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.
The only thing that was not finalized was the formation of its government, and Gt. Britain was obligated to finalize that.
Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Under the Right of Self-Determination, even a Provisional Government can make a claim.
(COMMENT)
There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
It does not mean that it is going to work out for them. In the case of the All Palestine Government, they tried to claim a territory already declared independent by the National Council for the Jewish State (recognized as the Provisional Council Government). The Arab League attempted to take it by force. The Hashemite Kingdom took a piece and the Egyptian Government took a piece. The All Palestine Government got nothing.
........View attachment 277999
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
What part of that confuses you?
Not true. The treaty was signed by the UK, France, Italy, rejected by Greece and a representative of the the Ottoman empire was present but did not have a vote.lol So you claim all legal rights come from the colonialist European countries?The right of self determination has nothing to do with declaring whatever land you want belongs to you, which is what the PA applying sovereignty to area C is. Furthermore, without a democratic process it is impossible for a people to exercise the right of self determination.RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Under the Right of Self-Determination, even a Provisional Government can make a claim.
(COMMENT)So who could apply sovereignty for the Palestinians? Clearly, the PA can't since it does not represent the Palestinians people and clearly the PLO can't since it is not a government.
There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
It does not mean that it is going to work out for them. In the case of the All Palestine Government, they tried to claim a territory already declared independent by the National Council for the Jewish State (recognized as the Provisional Council Government). The Arab League attempted to take it by force. The Hashemite Kingdom took a piece and the Egyptian Government took a piece. The All Palestine Government got nothing.
........View attachment 277999
Most Respectfully,
R
Wrong.
Palestine was defined by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and the will of the people was voted on at that time, under British supervision.
All of Palestine was they legally bound to the Palestinian, including what now is illegally called Israel.
There is no legal Jewish state because the UN did not have the authority to abrogate the Treaty of Sevres.
Nor can an immigrant Jewish minority legally take sovereignty from the indigenous Moslem majority.
What are you talking about?
The Treaty of Sevres was conducted with ALL parties with any interests in the region around Palestine.
The only people not represented were the Jews, because they had already pledged to not get involved in any sovereignty or governing concerns. They disavowed any interest in any sovereignty at the Carlsbad conference.
The main party to the Treaty of Sevres was Turkey.
So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?The Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.
What part of that confuses you?
So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?
What part of that confuses you?
The facts according to Israel.So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders.
What part of that confuses you?
The facts that anyone can see. The leadership is fragmented, the people identify more with their clans than the idea of having a state, and the only thing that gives them any sense of cohesiveness is hatred of Jews. They are not even a people, let alone a state.The facts according to Israel.So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.
More Israeli BS.The facts that anyone can see. The leadership is fragmented, the people identify more with their clans than the idea of having a state, and the only thing that gives them any sense of cohesiveness is hatred of Jews. They are not even a people, let alone a state.The facts according to Israel.So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.
That's like asking if water is wet. Palestine is a hoax created by ambitious Arab leaders to justify their power grabs, but the people have to be bullied into pretending they believe it.More Israeli BS.The facts that anyone can see. The leadership is fragmented, the people identify more with their clans than the idea of having a state, and the only thing that gives them any sense of cohesiveness is hatred of Jews. They are not even a people, let alone a state.The facts according to Israel.So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.
Do you have any proof for your allegation?
Of course not.
More unsubstantiated Israeli allegations.That's like asking if water is wet. Palestine is a hoax created by ambitious Arab leaders to justify their power grabs, but the people have to be bullied into pretending they believe it.More Israeli BS.The facts that anyone can see. The leadership is fragmented, the people identify more with their clans than the idea of having a state, and the only thing that gives them any sense of cohesiveness is hatred of Jews. They are not even a people, let alone a state.The facts according to Israel.So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.So says Israel.
Do you have any proof for your allegation?
Of course not.
None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ toomuchtime_, et al,
Under the Right of Self-Determination, even a Provisional Government can make a claim.
(COMMENT)
There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
It does not mean that it is going to work out for them. In the case of the All Palestine Government, they tried to claim a territory already declared independent by the National Council for the Jewish State (recognized as the Provisional Council Government). The Arab League attempted to take it by force. The Hashemite Kingdom took a piece and the Egyptian Government took a piece. The All Palestine Government got nothing.
........View attachment 277999
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.There is no absolute requirement for it to be a government. All it has to be is a "people" of some definable category.
What part of that confuses you?
“ International Borders” that you claim Israel never had because the U.N. did not have the “ authority to do so” were defined by the U. N. And we’re not accepted by the Arabs
What part of that confuses you?
So says Israel.Palestine is only a state of mind, not an actual state.Area C is in Palestine.If you are a US citizen, you are a citizen of the nation, not the territory, and your citizenship is defined by the laws of the US, not by any international boundaries. The US is a nation because the Americans made it a nation, just as Israel is a nation because the Jews made it a nation. Those Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are citizens of the PA as defined by treaty with Israel and nothing else, and none of this carries any Palestinian rights to sovereignty or any rights at all in area C.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?
What part of that confuses you?
None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. A territory defined by international borders."Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?The Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.
What part of that confuses you?
“ International Borders” that you claim Israel never had because the U.N. did not have the “ authority to do so” were defined by the U. N. And we’re not accepted by the Arabs
What part of that confuses you?
Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.
