Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

Just what it says. Palestine's international borders.

Oh, you are SO close! Yes, it shows the international borders which were passed down, in accordance with customary law, during a transfer of nationality or statehood. And what new state was formed there in 1948? Israel. Only Israel. Thank you for confirming Israel's borders.

Israel claims those borders?

Link?

So then, why do all maps of Israel show those fake border armistice lines?

 

[Shusha]

Link?

You want a link to the map you literally just posted? Are you not well today?

 

[rylah]

Just what it says. Palestine's international borders.

Oh, you are SO close! Yes, it shows the international borders which were passed down, in accordance with customary law, during a transfer of nationality or statehood. And what new state was formed there in 1948? Israel. Only Israel. Thank you for confirming Israel's borders.

Israel claims those borders?

Link?

So then, why do all maps of Israel show those fake border armistice lines?

Are You sure the Golan Heights are included in those lines as shown in Israeli maps?

Yasser Arafat once talked about the east side of the river and then about a singe Arab state from Morocco to Yemen, that's about how much functional and attached to reality these guys were,
and still to this day.

 

[Shusha]

So then, why do all maps of Israel show those fake border armistice lines?

Well, that is an interesting question. You and I both know that any division of Israel/Palestine is fake. Nothing has happened to create internal borders. We agree.

The reason the idea of these borders persists is the continued assumption that Israel will cede territory for the creation of another Arab Palestinian state or two. The assumption is that this is necessary both to protect Israel and to bring about self-determination for another Arab peoples.

 

[Hollie]

Just what it says. Palestine's international borders.

Oh, you are SO close! Yes, it shows the international borders which were passed down, in accordance with customary law, during a transfer of nationality or statehood. And what new state was formed there in 1948? Israel. Only Israel. Thank you for confirming Israel's borders.

Israel claims those borders?

Link?

So then, why do all maps of Israel show those fake border armistice lines?

It's a map you posted. You dont understand what you posted?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

Hamas not feelin’ the love.

Saudi authorities arrest over 60 Hamas members, supporters

https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/09/10/saudi-authorities-arrest-over-60-hamas-members-supporters/

Saudi Arabia outlaws membership in organizations suspecting of helping Hamas launder money, issues orders to confiscate money and assets of Hamas supporters and operatives.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You have posted this many times but you have always ducked the question about where Israel got the authority to claim Palestine's borders.

(COMMENT)

Self-Determination, with the coordination and approval of the UN Palestine Commission.

What entity is represented by what you call "Palestine's Borders?" Certainly not an entity having the authority of an Arab Palestinians.

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

 

[RoccoR]

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

No link?

(THE LINK)

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

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

 

[RoccoR]

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

She (long ago) met the requirements for being a state and has been recognized as a state in the international community.

Indeed, what are those requirements?

(COMMENT)

Recognition is not a requirement for the establishment of a state.


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

 

[RoccoR]

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

Israel never claimed palestine's borders. What does that mean. What borders did any soverign "country of Pal'istan" have?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Tracing Border Lines is nothing even to challenge. It is the same as drawing new lines of sovereignty that just happen to correspond to previous demarcations of former territories.

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

You have posted this many times but you have always ducked the question about where Israel got the authority to claim Palestine's borders.

No we haven't ducked the question. Again...Israel has the authority to claim borders because she is a STATE. She (long ago) met the requirements for being a state and has been recognized as a state in the international community. One of the most important qualifications for being a state is the ability to create treaties with other states. Such as the treaties Israel has with Jordan and Egypt.

The reason "Palestine" (whatever you mean by that) does not have borders is that it currently does not meet the criteria for being a state. Until such time as it does, it can not, by definition, have borders.

She (long ago) met the requirements for being a state and has been recognized as a state in the international community.

Indeed, what are those requirements?

Oh, come on now, you know these as well as I do: a government, a defined territory, a population and the ability to enter into formal agreements with other states.

Yeah, yeah, you are going to argue that Israel does not have the necessary "defined territory". But you apply some ridiculous notions about what "defined territory" means so you can claim Israel doesn't have it.

• International boundaries follow the previous boundaries in cases where there is a transfer of nationality or a division of territory occurs. The new nation therefore has the same boundaries as the old.
• International treaties, such as the Mandate for Palestine, can delineate or form boundaries.
• International treaties between states determine boundaries between states.
• States can abandon territory in a number of ways, such as removing actual sovereign control of a specific territory, creating a new boundary unilaterally, or through treaties with other states, including nascent states, creating a new boundary by mutual agreement.

Israel meets absolutely every one of these criteria. Without question.

Your imaginary "State of Palestine" meets none. It doesn't even come close until somewhere between 1988 and 1994, and arguably even now.

International boundaries follow the previous boundaries in cases where there is a transfer of nationality

When did this transfer happen?

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

She (long ago) met the requirements for being a state and has been recognized as a state in the international community.

Indeed, what are those requirements?

(COMMENT)

Recognition is not a requirement for the establishment of a state.


.........View attachment 278573
Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, think Palestine 1948.

BTW, Palestine was recognized by several other states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

No link?

(THE LINK)

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

.........View attachment 278572
Most Respectfully,
R

Good post. It would be great if the UN would live up to its stated ideals.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why do all maps of Israel show those fake border armistice lines?

Well, that is an interesting question. You and I both know that any division of Israel/Palestine is fake. Nothing has happened to create internal borders. We agree.

The reason the idea of these borders persists is the continued assumption that Israel will cede territory for the creation of another Arab Palestinian state or two. The assumption is that this is necessary both to protect Israel and to bring about self-determination for another Arab peoples.

The reason the idea of these borders persists is the continued assumption that Israel will cede territory for the creation of another Arab Palestinian state or two.

Link?

 

[Shusha]

When did this transfer happen?

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

Well, the interesting thing, Tinmore, is that you and I agree on a lot. And, in fact, if you would only lose the ridiculous notion that somehow rights don't apply to the Jewish people, we could get on with actual solutions to the conflict.

In order for sovereignty to transfer from one state to another two things have to happen, the existing sovereign has to part with their sovereignty and another sovereign has to take up sovereignty. (While an existing sovereign can unilaterally abandon territory, this does not create a new sovereign, it creates the condition of terra nullius)

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne takes care of the first part of our transfer. No matter how much you wish it so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does NOT take care of both parts. Why? Because Turkey does not cede the territory to a specific state; Turkey merely abandons the territory ("renounces" is the language used in the Article). We can fact-check this by seeing whether or not another state is mentioned as being the party to whom the territory is transferred and whether that state is a signatory to the treaty. For example, Article 15 reads: Turkey renounces in favor of Italy all rights and title to the following islands ... Since both Turkey and Italy are signatories, this is a mutual agreement made law by treaty. Article 16, which concerns the territory of Israel/Palestine does not contain any such designation of rights and title. Why? Because there was no legal entity with whom to make such an agreement. So there is no transfer of rights, only an abandoning of rights.

The Allied Powers and Britain had no rights or title to the territory in question. We can fact-check that and see if Article 16 gives rights and title to Britain, or any of the other Allied Powers who were signatories to the treaty. Nope. It does not. Again, there is no transfer of rights, only an abandoning of rights by Turkey.

With me so far?

 

[Shusha]

Alright, so now we have a territory which has been abandoned by the previous sovereign. But we don't quite have terra nullius. Why? Because a new concept was developing around that time in international law and that was the concept of self-determination of peoples.

This new concept, expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, said that territory could be held in trust by an "advanced nation" until such time as a peoples existence as independent nations can be recognized and they are able to stand alone.

Rather than terra nullius, then, the Mandate for Palestine created a trusteeship with Britain forming a temporary government, with full rights, but no title to the territory. This was the legal status of the territory of Israel/Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Britain did eventually abandon the trusteeship, creating the condition of terra nullius.

Still with me?

 

[toomuchtime_]

When did this transfer happen?

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

Well, the interesting thing, Tinmore, is that you and I agree on a lot. And, in fact, if you would only lose the ridiculous notion that somehow rights don't apply to the Jewish people, we could get on with actual solutions to the conflict.

In order for sovereignty to transfer from one state to another two things have to happen, the existing sovereign has to part with their sovereignty and another sovereign has to take up sovereignty. (While an existing sovereign can unilaterally abandon territory, this does not create a new sovereign, it creates the condition of terra nullius)

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne takes care of the first part of our transfer. No matter how much you wish it so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does NOT take care of both parts. Why? Because Turkey does not cede the territory to a specific state; Turkey merely abandons the territory ("renounces" is the language used in the Article). We can fact-check this by seeing whether or not another state is mentioned as being the party to whom the territory is transferred and whether that state is a signatory to the treaty. For example, Article 15 reads: Turkey renounces in favor of Italy all rights and title to the following islands ... Since both Turkey and Italy are signatories, this is a mutual agreement made law by treaty. Article 16, which concerns the territory of Israel/Palestine does not contain any such designation of rights and title. Why? Because there was no legal entity with whom to make such an agreement. So there is no transfer of rights, only an abandoning of rights.

The Allied Powers and Britain had no rights or title to the territory in question. We can fact-check that and see if Article 16 gives rights and title to Britain, or any of the other Allied Powers who were signatories to the treaty. Nope. It does not. Again, there is no transfer of rights, only an abandoning of rights by Turkey.

With me so far?

That sounds good, but in fact, the way sovereignty is usually transferred is by military force and the passage of time.

 

[Shusha]

As a reminder, the conditions required for transfer of sovereignty require two parts: the abandonment of sovereignty and the taking-up of sovereignty.

In 1948, the State of Israel declared independence (sovereignty). Israel had a government, a legally defined territory (inherited from the previous sovereign), a population (citizens) and, by 1949, had the ability to create treaties with other states (evidenced, by actual treaties with other states).

Israel had taken up sovereignty.

At no time prior to 1988 (ish) did anyone other than Israel assert or take-up sovereignty in the region. Why? No government. No control of territory. No population. No recognition.

 

[Shusha]

Was it by treaty or by illegal military conquest?

Illegal military conquest is defined by a State actor using military action to invade, occupy or take control of territory not under its sovereignty. The only such States were Jordan and Egypt. (Others tried, but did not succeed in taking control of territory outside their own sovereignty).

Self-determination, by definition, is not military conquest.

 

[Shusha]

That sounds good, but in fact, the way sovereignty is usually transferred is by military force and the passage of time.

I disagree most strongly. Modern customary law no longer accepts external military force or conquest as legitimate means of transferring territory from one State to another. Sovereignty rests with treaties and mutual agreements, often as a result of recognition of self-determination of a specific peoples by the involved parties and the international communities.