Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a territorial land dispute (Area "C" fully Israeli Jurisdiction) for which the Arab Palestinians never even tried to exercise either the dispute resolution process under the Oslo Accords or the requirements for resolution under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Having not exercise the Rule of Law, YOUR ANSER IS NO!
The Arab Palestinians do not now, nor have they ever followed the Declaration or Principles or the Rul of Law.
Solemnly proclaims the following principles:
The principle that States 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
(COMMENT)Do you consider illegal settlers who live on stolen land and participate and/or support Israel's crimes to be "innocent civilians?"
This is the case of the Arab Palestinians agreeing to a Treaty (Oslo Accords) and then backing out of the agreement when the Israelis, after finding no good faith at negotiations, exercise their options.
(QUESTION)
At what point in history did the Arab Palestinians ever exercise sovereignty over Area "C?" • IF → it is not under Arab Palestinian sovereignty, • THEN → what is to prevent the Israelis from passing a domestic law over a territory to which it has uncontested (no dispute resolution) full authority?
Most Respectfully,
RNo it isn't. Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders. There is no dispute.This is a territorial land dispute
Then you base yous conclusions on false premise.
Israel never considered international law.
Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders.
Weren't those borders set by Israeli signers?
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You cannot prove this. This is just something that the Arab Palestinian wants to believe. But it is false. The Allied Powers demarcation Lines have no connection to today's Arab Palestinian.
(COMMENT)No it isn't. Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders. There is no dispute.
Then you base yous conclusions on false premise.
Israel never considered international law.
This is just a desperate attempt for the Arab Palestinian to grasp at some territorial legitimacy. The Allied Powers never established an Arab Palestinian State in the territory that was formerly under the administration of the Mandate.
• IF → this is all you have, • THEN → you are sadly out of luck.
You are presenting an argumentum ad misericordiam, which is an "appeal to pity." We are asked to accept a premise on the misuse of a proper name in order to be the single justification for a larger concept.
This is a case for misunderstanding the definition of "Palestine." See the UN Memo from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs (2012) and the first Palestine Order in Council (1922).
Most Respectfully,
RI have many times. It is just when you have to choose between real documents and Israel's bullshit talking points, you always grab Israel's bullshit talking points.You cannot prove this.
It makes me wonder how much they are paying you.
(COMMENT)I have many times. It is just when you have to choose between real documents and Israel's bullshit talking points, you always grab Israel's bullshit talking points.
It makes me wonder how much they are paying you.
(COMMENT)Article VThis is a territorial land dispute
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
Lebanon on one side Palestine on the other. It doesn't look that confusing.
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
Hmmmm…..
(COMMENT)It makes me wonder how much they are paying you.
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh, I don't think so.
(COMMENT)I have many times. It is just when you have to choose between real documents and Israel's bullshit talking points, you always grab Israel's bullshit talking points.
It makes me wonder how much they are paying you.
In the entire 20th Century, there is NO document that stipulates Arab Palestinian Sovereignty anywhere in the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
Article 16 of the Treaty of Laussanne assigns the rights and title to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.Article 16 of the Treaty of Laussanne assigns the rights and title to the Allied Powers.
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Toddsterpatriot, et al,
Once again, you get it wrong. The current boundary is set by :
II. Report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 (S/2000/460)
• Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General •
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 ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949” and that “subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon”.
(COMMENT)Article VThis is a territorial land dispute
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
Lebanon on one side Palestine on the other. It doesn't look that confusing.
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
Hmmmm…..
Between 1923 and the present time, the border is defined, at least by Lebanon, as the "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon."
Everyone seems to know this but you. Don't play word games - politically and diplomatically you are 100% off course.
Most Respectfully,
R
Where was Israel then. That was the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. The only thing that the armistice agreement did was to lay an armistice line (not a border) on top of that border.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 ...”,
Indeed there was a green line (not a border) then they created a blue line (not a border) because Israel has no border there.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Toddsterpatriot, et al,
Once again, you get it wrong. The current boundary is set by :
II. Report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 (S/2000/460)
• Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General •
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 ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949” and that “subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon”.
(COMMENT)Article VThis is a territorial land dispute
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
Lebanon on one side Palestine on the other. It doesn't look that confusing.
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
Hmmmm…..
Between 1923 and the present time, the border is defined, at least by Lebanon, as the "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon."
Everyone seems to know this but you. Don't play word games - politically and diplomatically you are 100% off course.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.
(COMMENT)
The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.(COMMENT)The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
Mandates were trustees. They didn't own anything.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.(COMMENT)The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
So drawing borders of states, writing laws for them, policing
- is not sovereignty over territory?
Mandates were trustees. They didn't own anything.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.(COMMENT)The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
So drawing borders of states, writing laws for them, policing
- is not sovereignty over territory?
Post war treaties.Mandates were trustees. They didn't own anything.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.(COMMENT)The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
So drawing borders of states, writing laws for them, policing
- is not sovereignty over territory?
Really so who drew the borders of Palestine or Syria, or Lebanon, or Iraq - the inhabitants?
Post war treaties.Mandates were trustees. They didn't own anything.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.(COMMENT)The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
So drawing borders of states, writing laws for them, policing
- is not sovereignty over territory?
Really so who drew the borders of Palestine or Syria, or Lebanon, or Iraq - the inhabitants?
Palestine doesn’t exist and never existed. The Arabs who lived there and their allies were conquered in the wars of 1948 and 1967. Similarly to what the US did to native Americans and to Mexico when they took Cali and Texas.
Islam basically took all of its property by force. Their prophet was a warlord. I am not sure who Jesus was but for certain history agrees he was not a warlord.
Palestinians who are unhappy need to move. Jews did. From Europe and Russia.
More like Indians establishing an independent govt on 1% of Americas.
Israel is a tiny reservation in the sea of Arab Muslim countries.
Palestine doesn’t exist and never existed. The Arabs who lived there and their allies were conquered in the wars of 1948 and 1967. Similarly to what the US did to native Americans and to Mexico when they took Cali and Texas.
Islam basically took all of its property by force. Their prophet was a warlord. I am not sure who Jesus was but for certain history agrees he was not a warlord.
Palestinians who are unhappy need to move. Jews did. From Europe and Russia.
More like Indians establishing an independent govt on 1% of Americas.
Israel is a tiny reservation in the sea of Arab Muslim countries.
Correct. Surrounded by enemies whose doctrine is to wipe them off the face of the earth. Yet, here in the US people support a BDS movement. Sad.
Post war treaties.Mandates were trustees. They didn't own anything.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are trying (desperately) to string your interpretation of the law together. I think it is kind of cute.
[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 20512331, member: 21837
No they didn't. That went to the respective new states. Remember the non annexation rule of the Mandates.(COMMENT)The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.The restrictions on annexation did not apply because those are post WWII conditions. Prior to WWII, the generalized rules followed Westphallen Law.
First, Article 16 relinquishes rights and title to the Allied Powers as a collective (parties to the treaty); and not singularly. There we no set of conditions that would have allowed any single Allied Powers party to the treaty the independent authority to "annex" any of the territories.
Second, no one, certainly I did not, mention annexation in respect to are most recent conversations.
Third, the Carve-outs for the new states were discretionary on the part of the Allied Powers. The consituants of the various factions under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration were NOT parties to the treaty and without a voice in the restructure and redispotion of the territories.
The perimeter of the territorial post-War Syke-Picot boundaries in no way relate to the associated inhabitants. They were set independent of the political subdivisions of the Vilayets of Syria and Beirut; noting, of course, that there was NO Vilayet or Sanjuk under the title of "Palestine."
And once again, it is time to remind you that "Palestine" was the short version for the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. It was the description for the temporary Government; a necessary initial step to the establishment of self-governing institutions.
Most Respectfully,
R
So drawing borders of states, writing laws for them, policing
- is not sovereignty over territory?
Really so who drew the borders of Palestine or Syria, or Lebanon, or Iraq - the inhabitants?
Palestine doesn’t exist and never existed. The Arabs who lived there and their allies were conquered in the wars of 1948 and 1967. Similarly to what the US did to native Americans and to Mexico when they took Cali and Texas.
Islam basically took all of its property by force. Their prophet was a warlord. I am not sure who Jesus was but for certain history agrees he was not a warlord.
Palestinians who are unhappy need to move. Jews did. From Europe and Russia.
More like Indians establishing an independent govt on 1% of Americas.
Israel is a tiny reservation in the sea of Arab Muslim countries.
Correct. Surrounded by enemies whose doctrine is to wipe them off the face of the earth. Yet, here in the US people support a BDS movement. Sad.
#BDS-holes in the US also openly call for and violent uprising against the WH.
The Mandates never acquired sovereignty. Sovereignty was in the hand of the residents which was in conformance with international law.Post war treaties.Mandates were trustees. They didn't own anything.The territories were distributed to their respective states where the people who normally lived there became citizens of their new states. The Mandates never annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territories.
So drawing borders of states, writing laws for them, policing
- is not sovereignty over territory?
Really so who drew the borders of Palestine or Syria, or Lebanon, or Iraq - the inhabitants?
Don't be ridiculous, treaties don't sign themselves.
Borders at the time were set by the Allied Powers, as were law and policing.
Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order.
