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.
OK, you have said that. Can you prove that?
Tinnie----you have PROVEN ---that a mass of land was determined to be called
PALESTINE in 1922------You have not come even remotely close to proving
or even demonstrating that this mass of land is AN ARAB MUSLIM COUNTRY
-<<< your fantastical notion Your concept that 1922 was a MAGICAL YEAR---
in which determinations regarding land borders or even "countries" became
ETERNAL ----is ludicrous In order to support your idiotic fantasy----you prefer
to ignore the FACT that arab muslim residents did not being to SELF IDENTIFY
as "palestinians" until the 1960s when they developed the notion that
so doing would render them owners of that particular LAND MASS which got
named "palestine" as a nod to the Roman usage of 2000 years ago and since
BY JEWS. until it was redeemed in 1948---back to Israel/judea
for the record NABLUS is really NEOPOLIS so named by the
ROMANS 2000 years ago. to replace the name SHECHEM ---which
preceded it. Would you prefer that Jerusalem go back to the
ROMAN NAME AEILIA CAPITOLINA. A mere 1400 years ago the
city now called "medina" was "YATHRIB" Let's insist on
ETERNITY Pakistan did not exist in 1922----today it is filled with
MOGHUL OCCUPIERS OF HINDU INDIA
Oh boy! Israel's name game.
(COMMENT)You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
The Appalachian Region said:The Appalachian Region, as defined in ARC's authorizing legislation, is a 205,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Forty-two percent of the Region's population is rural, compared with 20 percent of the national population.
The Region's economy, once highly dependent on mining, forestry, agriculture, chemical industries, and heavy industry, has become more diversified in recent times, and now includes a variety of manufacturing and service industries. In 1965, one in three Appalachians lived in poverty. In 2008, the Region's poverty rate was 18 percent. The number of Appalachian counties considered economically distressed was 223 in 1965; in fiscal year 2013 that number is 98.
SOURCE: The Appalachian Region - Appalachian Regional Commission
P F Tinmore, et al,
No, I can't prove a negative. But in the US, we have an analogy.
(COMMENT)You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
Very similar to Palestine, a region, in the Eastern US, we have a Region known as the Appalachian Region. It even has its own commission.
The Appalachian Region said:The Appalachian Region, as defined in ARC's authorizing legislation, is a 205,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Forty-two percent of the Region's population is rural, compared with 20 percent of the national population.
The Region's economy, once highly dependent on mining, forestry, agriculture, chemical industries, and heavy industry, has become more diversified in recent times, and now includes a variety of manufacturing and service industries. In 1965, one in three Appalachians lived in poverty. In 2008, the Region's poverty rate was 18 percent. The number of Appalachian counties considered economically distressed was 223 in 1965; in fiscal year 2013 that number is 98.
SOURCE: The Appalachian Region - Appalachian Regional Commission
With Appalachian, I can present all the same evidence that it exists in the very same fashion as you do with Palestine. Yet, Applachia is not a state or country of itself. It has a defined region, it has a defined people, it is counted by the number of counties within it. Yet, it is not it own sovereignty in any way. Why, well through the process of elimination, I can show that all the territory is incorporated into another state or zone of control.
I will (probably) not find a web site or a document that says, "Appalachia is not a state or country."
In the case of Israel, it made an declaration of independence after the closure of the British Mandate over Palestine. In its application, it used the Annex of Res 181 as the description of its territory (although since then, by various treaties it has expended). This has been shown many times. While the Region of Palestine exists, it is not a sovereign territory (excluding the recent slight of hand by the PA and Abbas), any more than Appalachia is its own sovereignty.
I think I've beat this to death.
Most Respectfully,
R
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.
ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
P F Tinmore,
As I said, I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn't exist).
(COMMENT)OK, you have said that. Can you prove that?
I can look at a map or a globe and tell you I don't see a State called Palestine. I can tell you that I see no membership in the UN for Palestine.
The burden of proof is on you. You claim a Government is know as the State of Palestine. Where is it and who is it's leader?
Most Respectfully,
R
You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
P F Tinmore, et al,
No, I can't prove a negative. But in the US, we have an analogy.
(COMMENT)You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
Very similar to Palestine, a region, in the Eastern US, we have a Region known as the Appalachian Region. It even has its own commission.
With Appalachian, I can present all the same evidence that it exists in the very same fashion as you do with Palestine. Yet, Applachia is not a state or country of itself. It has a defined region, it has a defined people, it is counted by the number of counties within it. Yet, it is not it own sovereignty in any way. Why, well through the process of elimination, I can show that all the territory is incorporated into another state or zone of control.
I will (probably) not find a web site or a document that says, "Appalachia is not a state or country."
In the case of Israel, it made an declaration of independence after the closure of the British Mandate over Palestine. In its application, it used the Annex of Res 181 as the description of its territory (although since then, by various treaties it has expended). This has been shown many times. While the Region of Palestine exists, it is not a sovereign territory (excluding the recent slight of hand by the PA and Abbas), any more than Appalachia is its own sovereignty.
I think I've beat this to death.
Most Respectfully,
R
The difference between the Appalachian Region and Palestine is that Palestine has international borders and none of it is inside another state or country.
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.
ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................P F Tinmore,
As I said, I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn't exist).
(COMMENT)
I can look at a map or a globe and tell you I don't see a State called Palestine. I can tell you that I see no membership in the UN for Palestine.
The burden of proof is on you. You claim a Government is know as the State of Palestine. Where is it and who is it's leader?
Most Respectfully,
R
You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.
That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.
Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.
That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.
Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.
That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.
Tinny, powered by hate.
(COMMENT)ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.
ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
P F Tinmore, et al,
This simply doesn't apply.
(COMMENT)ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.
ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Actually, it is the other way around.
Palestine has no international borders. The regional boundaries that describe old Palestine are all inside some other country or zone of control.
The quotation doesn't apply to Palestine. And even if it did, then it would apply to Israel and all the surrounding states as well.
It is a foolish argument.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Please expound. Your post is making no sense.
P F Tinmore, et al,
There are two points that were made.
- First, if the quotation cited applies to Palestine, then it also must equally apply to the current states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; or not at all. This has one set of implications.
- Second, the borders of Palestine are time sensitive. What was considered Palestine in 1916, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, is NOT the same Palestine after the creations of the French and British Mandates; and the subsequent independents of Lebanon, Jordan, and then Syria.
(COMMENT)Please expound. Your post is making no sense.
There is a book I can recommend, that might help you understand what the term Palestine means and its administration into modern times.
Boundaries of modern Palestine, 1840-1947
By Gideon Biger
- Pages 220 thru 225
Just to simplify things, Palestine, before the Mandates (French and British) was an area much larger than Israel is today (even if you include the Occupied Territories). Palestine, was essentially all of what we generally call today, the Middle East. It assumed much of souther Lebanon, East across the Jordan River, and into Syria. It is often describe as a delimitations process. But at no time were the boundaries, as political markers, not subject to negotiation. Palestine has not had international borders in more than 600 years, and has never been a country. But it is true to say that the has been subject to several different sovereignties over time.
(THE QUOTATION)
"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,..."
Citations (supra) from a Pan-American convention, while a nice research piece, has little or no relevance to the activity under discussion pertaining to the Middle East and the Recognition of Palestine.
But if it did, then insert the word "Israel" in place of the word "state." If it were an applicable reference, then it would apply equally to every state, and that would negate the sovereignty of Palestine and these international boundaries you persist in calling "international borders after 1949."
There is no government of record and no leadership claiming recognition Until recently). In fact the Palestinian and Arab regionals rejected the two-state solution that would have created the State of Palestine.
(THE LOGIC)
If you believe in the Pan-American principle you cited, supra, then it must also be true that you believe:
The political existence of the state "of Israel" is independent of recognition by the other states "or the Palestinians." Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence "from the destructive forces of representing the Palestinians."
It is either true for all, or none.
Most Respectfully,
R
(THE QUOTATION)
"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,..."
Citations (supra) from a Pan-American convention, while a nice research piece, has little or no relevance to the activity under discussion pertaining to the Middle East and the Recognition of Palestine.
Not true.
--------------
Montevideo Convention, in full Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 (and entering into force the following year), that established the standard definition of a state under international law.
Montevideo Convention (international agreement [1933]) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
(COMMENT)The League of Nations Covanent recognized the rights of the people of the place to self determination.
---------------
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
---------------
The right to create their own state is in the normal inhabitants inside a defined area. Nowhere is it ever mentioned that foreigners have a right to self determination. In fact external interference is illegal under international law.
---------------
Criteria for the right to self-determination
A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state; (2) freely associated with another state or (3) integrated with another state after freely having expressed their will to do so . The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations .
The right to self-determination - IHL
---------------
Statehood is the realization of the right to self determination not a prerequisite. To say that they never had a sovereign state is irrelevant.
(QUESTION)The right to create their own state is in the normal inhabitants inside a defined area. Nowhere is it ever mentioned that foreigners have a right to self determination. In fact external interference is illegal under international law.
P F Tinmore, et al,
(POINT of CLARIFICATION)
Whereas the The Covenant of the League of Nations (LONs - 1924)(now the UN) is international law binding to all members of the LONs (UN), the Montevideo Convention (1933) is international law binding to the limited signatories:
- United States,
- Argentina,
- Brazil,
- Chile,
- Colombia,
- Cuba, the
- Dominican Republic,
- Ecuador,
- El Salvador,
- Guatemala,
- Haiti,
- Honduras,
- Mexico,
- Nicaragua,
- Panama,
- Paraguay,
- Peru,
- Uruguay,
- Venezuela
The commonality among these nations is that they are all in either North, Central or South America. The law is internationally binding between these selected nations. It is not universal law. If it were, it would be that much more against the Arab/Palestinian insurgency in the right to self-determination by the Jewish Palestinians that created Israel. (As much as these nations would like to impose international law on the rest of the world, they actually cannot.)
I love how Tinnie says that Rocco's post doesn't make sense, when in reality Rocco's post make the most sense out of anyone here. He explains everything so clearly, Rocco, you're great
Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................You do not have to prove a negative.
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.
All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.
Thanks, Paul
I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.
That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.
Facts about issues that fail to penetrate that thick skull you're wearing.I love how Tinnie says that Rocco's post doesn't make sense, when in reality Rocco's post make the most sense out of anyone here. He explains everything so clearly, Rocco, you're great
Rocco is cool. Unlike most posters he actually discusses issues.
