Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

"Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?

Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. 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.

The rule of law must be upheld or else you have institutionalize crime.
And Israel is in violation of the law.
Israel has no legal justification, is not the indigenous natives, did not buy or own the land, and is not even the majority.
And failing to allow the Moslem refugees to return to their homes was a war crime.

I find it just a bit ironic that you’re attempting to lecture anyone on “rule of law” when Islamic terrorist franchises operate under the quasi-governments in Gaza and the West Bank.

 

[RoccoR]

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

We are very close in terms of an agreement.

The application of sovereignty to an area means applying civil law to that area, so the PA's threat to apply sovereignty to area C is bizarre nonsense. Eventually, Israel will have to apply sovereignty to area C because not doing so gives the Palestinians false hope that they may yet gain it and that encourages conflict.

(COMMENT)

Well, I'm not sure that it is an eventuality. Militarily (Six-Day War) → the retention of selected ground within the territory will be necessary in order to provide defensible borders.
(JCSM-373-67 29 JUN 1967)

Israel did not capture Judea and Samaria while pursuing the Arab Legion. Jordan did not initially join Egypt and Syria in attacking Israel, but Naser, who didn't seem to be getting accurate reports from his generals, demanded Jordan open another front, promising that the Egyptian air force would give them cover, but of course, Israel had already destroyed most of the Egyptian air force. The Jordanian forces suffered extremely heavy losses and fled, leaving Jerusalem to the Israelis. The IDF did not pursue them but set up a perimeter around Jerusalem, which Israel intended to keep, and assumed the Jordanian forces were still in Samaria. The next morning, Israeli scouts reported all Jordanian forces had fled across the river, and Israel set up a defensive perimeter along the river. Israel's intention was at the time to keep Jerusalem but trade the rest of Judea and Samaria for peace with Jordan, but Jordan joined the other Arab nations in refusing to talk peace with Israel.

(COMMENT)

Up to this point, we agree. I won't quibble over military perceptions and presentation. Every smart combat force sets up a defensive perimeter while stopped under combat conditions. And a "Reconnaissance in Force" → looking forward of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) → may be expressed

The Jordanians (in my opinion) used the 1948 War to gain territorial advantages (including Jerusalem). The King (Jordan) wanted to oversee Jerusalem in the same way his father (Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, the Sharif and Emir of the Hejaz) oversaw Mecca. That status brought King of Jordan's father serious prestige as the King of Hejaz. It was a status that the King of Jordan wanted to emulate.

As for Jordan having sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, only two countries in the world recognized Jordan's annexation of the territory, Pakistan and the UK. In fact, the other Arab nations were incensed by it and Egypt threatened to go to war with Jordan if it did not retract its annexation. The UK sent troops to Jordan to defend it. Jordan clearly had no greater claim to Judea and Samaria than Israel.

(COMMENT)

We agree, that Jordan had no claim. But the validity of a claim is NOT always the key to averting difficulties by conflict.

And, it is my impression that if there were only two Arabs in the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region, they would start a fight between themselves.

The precedent under International Law comes from Article 3 (political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other state), Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933). In April 1950, the Jordanian parliament (Arab Palestinian of the West Bank were equally represented) convened, and within the month, the West Bank was annexed. The procedure did not need international approval.

The only reason that the other regional powers were "incensed" is that they didn't think of it first.

People talk about the rights of nations or of peoples, but the fact is no nation or people has any rights it can't defend. The Palestinians had the opportunity to define their rights in negotiations with Israel, but they chose the second intifada instead, and since that time their leadership has fragmented and there is no political entity among the Palestinians that can credibly offer peace to Israel, so now they have rights as individuals but they have no rights as a nation or a people and won't unless they find a way to unify and negotiate with Israel in good faith.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we agree. All nations have a need to defend their independence.

I am not sure that culturally, the Arab Palestinians have an understanding concerning the advantages of a "negotiation" → or → the "negotiated outcome."

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

There are some interpretations that are made capriciously that will NOT perpetually remain the same.

Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation,

(COMMENT)

Will this is not truly accurate.

The intended 1920 San Remo boundaries (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) were NOT exclusive to the Jewish "Nation." Within the San Remo meaning, it was that the Jewish National Home, would be located somewhere within the boundaries (from the western frontier of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea).

his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, that is an interpretation that has no leg to sand on. There is no cause to “stand” before the court and advocate to support the idea that the 19th, 20th, and 21st Century "Jewish Immigrant" / "Israeli Citizen" had such a far-reaching claim. The Arab Palestinians make a similar claim on a completely different set of logic.

The longer the conflict drags on, the more the reasons for the conflict become irrelevant and the more difficult the aspects of the conflict become to explain.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.

"Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?

Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. 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?

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Citizens of a territory"? Are you writing a new dictionary?

Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. 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?

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

 

[Hollie]

Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. 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?

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

What territory is this "Pal'istanian" territory?

If it is illegal to acquire territory by force, what is this Islamist border gee-had all about?

 

[P F Tinmore]

“ 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?

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

What territory is this "Pal'istanian" territory?

If it is illegal to acquire territory by force, what is this Islamist border gee-had all about?

Palestine's International borders are with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

 

[Hollie]

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

What territory is this "Pal'istanian" territory?

If it is illegal to acquire territory by force, what is this Islamist border gee-had all about?

Palestine's International borders are with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

You're a bit confused about Pal'istanian borders. What territory do Pal'istanians exercise sovereign control over?

 

[Hollie]

Oh, dear. Gaza yutes are goin' rouge.

An opportune moment for Iran to step in and fuel the fire of gee-had.

Iran also benefits from dead Sunni wannabes as the Sunni view Shia Islam as a heretical sect.



Israel Believes Hamas Is Losing Control Over Gaza Youth

The younger generation is frustrated with how the organization is reining in the weekly March of Return demonstrations, and are abandoning Hamas for rogue groups.

Israel believes Hamas is losing control over Gaza youth

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

What territory is this "Pal'istanian" territory?

If it is illegal to acquire territory by force, what is this Islamist border gee-had all about?

Palestine's International borders are with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

You're a bit confused about Pal'istanian borders. What territory do Pal'istanians exercise sovereign control over?

Palestine is occupied. Occupations cannot acquire territory or sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh, dear. Gaza yutes are goin' rouge.

An opportune moment for Iran to step in and fuel the fire of gee-had.

Iran also benefits from dead Sunni wannabes as the Sunni view Shia Islam as a heretical sect.



Israel Believes Hamas Is Losing Control Over Gaza Youth

The younger generation is frustrated with how the organization is reining in the weekly March of Return demonstrations, and are abandoning Hamas for rogue groups.

Israel believes Hamas is losing control over Gaza youth

Indeed, Fatah, the PA, and Hamas are growing more and more irrelevant to the Palestinians.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, dear. Gaza yutes are goin' rouge.

An opportune moment for Iran to step in and fuel the fire of gee-had.

Iran also benefits from dead Sunni wannabes as the Sunni view Shia Islam as a heretical sect.



Israel Believes Hamas Is Losing Control Over Gaza Youth

The younger generation is frustrated with how the organization is reining in the weekly March of Return demonstrations, and are abandoning Hamas for rogue groups.

Israel believes Hamas is losing control over Gaza youth

Indeed, Fatah, the PA, and Hamas are growing more and more irrelevant to the Palestinians.

Indeed, the largely lawless tribal areas (mini-caliphates), of Fatah, the PA, and Hamas are becoming zipcodes of Tehran.

Indeed, get up to speed on Shia eschatology so you're not left behind.

 

[Hollie]

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

What territory is this "Pal'istanian" territory?

If it is illegal to acquire territory by force, what is this Islamist border gee-had all about?

Palestine's International borders are with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

You're a bit confused about Pal'istanian borders. What territory do Pal'istanians exercise sovereign control over?

Palestine is occupied. Occupations cannot acquire territory or sovereignty.

What sovereign territory of Pal'istan is occupied? Occupations cannot acquire territory or sovereignty.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So says everyone who pays attention to the facts.

The facts according to Israel.

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.

More Israeli BS.

Do you have any proof for your allegation?

Of course not.

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 unsubstantiated Israeli allegations.

You can dance and you can spin but you can't hide from the truth that the whole idea of "Palestine" is just a hoax used by ambitious Arab leaders to try to grab power. The Arab nations, themselves, never took the idea seriously and only used it as a ploy to try to destroy Israel and grab the land for themselves. If the Arabs had taken the idea of a Palestinians state seriously, if the so called Palestinians had taken it seriously, Jordan never would have annexed Judea and Samaria and the so called Palestinians would have raged against the annexation themselves. The only thing that unites the so called Palestinians is hatred of Jews.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not at all. I am a citizen of the US. 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?

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

Silly stuff. They abandoned any control over their own fate with the second intifada. The only strength they ever had was in negotiations with Israel, and having abandoned that they are powerless to move events.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Uhhh, WRONG!

Palestine's International borders are with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

(COMMENT)

Palestine (whatever you mean by that, has NO borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

And before you ask, I'm not going to repeat the links that have been given to you so many times before. But what I would like is for you to give me the link to a treaty between "Palestine" (again whatever you mean by that) and any of the four.

Remembering, the Government of Palestine was the UK, not Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinians never created a country. The Israelis gave then Gaza and the West Bank is divided into four Areas (A, B, C, and Jerusalem).

The Arab Palestinians are really failures at being failures; in that, they never even tried.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

“ 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?

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

Silly stuff. They abandoned any control over their own fate with the second intifada. The only strength they ever had was in negotiations with Israel, and having abandoned that they are powerless to move events.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Uhhh, WRONG!

Palestine's International borders are with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

(COMMENT)

Palestine (whatever you mean by that, has NO borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

And before you ask, I'm not going to repeat the links that have been given to you so many times before. But what I would like is for you to give me the link to a treaty between "Palestine" (again whatever you mean by that) and any of the four.

Remembering, the Government of Palestine was the UK, not Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinians never created a country. The Israelis gave then Gaza and the West Bank is divided into four Areas (A, B, C, and Jerusalem).

The Arab Palestinians are really failures at being failures; in that, they never even tried.

........View attachment 278481
Most Respectfully,
R

Nice deflection.

Now how about those borders?

 

[toomuchtime_]

None of it. The Palestinians have the right not to divide their territory. Nobody else has the right to divide it for them.

Not true. Division of territory based on self-determination of peoples is not only legal, it’s normal.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant. Given that Palestine's borders were legally defined exclusively in reference to the Jewish Nation, his judgment supports the application of Israel's sovereignty on both banks of the river, or at the least on all of its western bank aka "from the river to the sea" solely into the hands of Israel given the choice, even though he doesn't understand the repercussions of such statements or intended the opposite outcome.

But then again that's just You know, his opinion.

If according to his opinion Palestinians have a right to not divide any territory, then it means no territory divided for an Arab state stands that judgement to a certain extent of the judgement, if applied by decision of the claimant.

No wonder you are confused.

The Palestinians cannot be required, or forced, to divide their territory if they chose not to. And, it is illegal to acquire any of their territory by force.

Silly stuff. They abandoned any control over their own fate with the second intifada. The only strength they ever had was in negotiations with Israel, and having abandoned that they are powerless to move events.

Link?

lol You need to be linked to a brain.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OK, here we go (again).

Nice deflection.

Now how about those borders?

(COMMENT)

◈ Jordan: • Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) • Article 3 - International Boundary

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

◈ Egypt: • Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979) • Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine.​

◈ Lebanon: • Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General • II. Report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 (S/2000/460)
Paragraph 13 of the report states that “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”

◈ Syria: • 14 December 1981 | Israel Annexes Former Syrian Territory of Golan Heights • Golan Heights Law​

Does,, w,hatever you call "Palestine," even remotely like this???



........
Most Respectfully,
R