Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for heaven sake!!!

Article 1(2), UN Charter: 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;

Article 2(4), UN Charter: 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.

You keep banging on about sovereignty being the purview of a government or state. States come and go. Governments change. However, what is consistent is the people's rights to their territory.

Whenever you see the mention of standard rights: The right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity, they are always attributed to the people in a defined territory. Governments and states are never mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Yes Empires, States, and Governments do come and go. And the fact that each shift in territorial government does not reqirewhole sale genocide, is often observed.

The Concept of Sovereignty
Revisited
Jens Bartelson
The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved
​

The first view, the sovereign state is unlikely to remain the main locus of political authority and community in the future. It is challenged by new constellations of authority and community which transcend the divide between the domestic and the international spheres, and will soon be replaced by new forms of political life that know nothing of this distinction.

The second view, the sovereign state is likely to remain a potent source of authority and community even in the future. Those emergent constellations of authority and community that allegedly challenge the predominance of the sovereign state are ultimately only manifestations of its successful sovereignty claims. They are thus indicative of the remarkable endurance of this concept in both theory and practice. When properly understood, therefore, the concept of sovereignty retains much of its explanatory power and normative relevance.

Sovereignty
politics
Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy.​

Most Repectfully,
R

You are starting in the middle.

In international law, the people are "married" to their land. They cannot be removed from their land and their land cannot be taken from them.

According to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship Order, and affirmed by resolution 181, the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine. They are the ones with the right to sovereignty within their defined territory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for heaven sake!!!

Article 1(2), UN Charter: 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;

Article 2(4), UN Charter: 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.

You keep banging on about sovereignty being the purview of a government or state. States come and go. Governments change. However, what is consistent is the people's rights to their territory.

Whenever you see the mention of standard rights: The right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity, they are always attributed to the people in a defined territory. Governments and states are never mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Yes Empires, States, and Governments do come and go. And the fact that each shift in territorial government does not reqirewhole sale genocide, is often observed.

The Concept of Sovereignty
Revisited
Jens Bartelson
The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved
​

The first view, the sovereign state is unlikely to remain the main locus of political authority and community in the future. It is challenged by new constellations of authority and community which transcend the divide between the domestic and the international spheres, and will soon be replaced by new forms of political life that know nothing of this distinction.

The second view, the sovereign state is likely to remain a potent source of authority and community even in the future. Those emergent constellations of authority and community that allegedly challenge the predominance of the sovereign state are ultimately only manifestations of its successful sovereignty claims. They are thus indicative of the remarkable endurance of this concept in both theory and practice. When properly understood, therefore, the concept of sovereignty retains much of its explanatory power and normative relevance.

Sovereignty
politics
Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy.​

Most Repectfully,
R

You are starting in the middle.

In international law, the people are "married" to their land. They cannot be removed from their land and their land cannot be taken from them.

According to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship Order, and affirmed by resolution 181, the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine. They are the ones with the right to sovereignty within their defined territory.

In international law, the people are "married" to their land. They cannot be removed from their land and their land cannot be taken from them.

Exactly!
That's why no land was taken from Germany after WWI and WWII.
And that's why millions of ethnic Germans weren't expelled from across Europe after WWII.

 

[Linkiloo]

If people can be married to their land, they can also get divorced from it.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Linkiloo, et al,

I had to chuckle at this. Someone has a quick mind.

If people can be married to their land, they can also get divorced from it.

(COMMENT)

There are several examples of people, territory, and laws that could be used as a good example. But the best one for the time period, that fit with the same Allied Powers, and being the same territory by shifting in sovereignty (that comes to mind) is that of Alsace Moselle (formerly the territory of the former Alsace-Lorraine).

• The territory of Alsace-Lorraine was incorporated into the German Empire after France’s defeat in 1871 after the Franco-German War.
• Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France in 1919 by the Allied Powers after the defeat of Germany in World War I.
• In the early part of WWII, after the defeat and occupation of France by Germany, Alsace-Lorraine was annexed by Germany.
• After the defeat of the Axis Powers in 1945, Alsace-Lorraine was returned and re-incorporated into French Republic in 1945 by the Allied Powers.​

As you can see, the nationality of the people and the sovereignty over the territory flip-flopped a couple of times here. The PF Tinmore Posting of 1241 is scrambled.

• It was well after WWII that the concepts in International Law altered to what it is today. But it is certainly not definitive in the Arab - Palestinian Conflict.
• The Treaty of Lausanne does not grant the Arab Palestinians any sovereignty over any territory whatsoever. It does spect to nationality, which follows sovereignty (not the other way around). In the Alsace Moselle example I cited, the nationality and citizenship shifted back-and-forth with the sovereign claim.
• The Palestine Citizenship Order was required at all, only because it pertained to the territory of the subject to the territory under the Mandate. The citizenship order allowed the Government of Palestine (actually the UK) to be recognized. It was necessary because the British did not want a legal slight and make a clear distinction between British Citizenship and Palestinian Citizenship.
• In general, the Resolution 181(II) simply followed the general line of thought.​

"Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."

There is a very distinct difference between the establishment of the two states as recommended. Don't let the wool be pulled over your eyes. This is what we call the "Flim-Flam." In Posting #1238, the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for heaven sake!!!

Article 1(2), UN Charter: 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;

Article 2(4), UN Charter: 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.

You keep banging on about sovereignty being the purview of a government or state. States come and go. Governments change. However, what is consistent is the people's rights to their territory.

Whenever you see the mention of standard rights: The right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity, they are always attributed to the people in a defined territory. Governments and states are never mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Yes Empires, States, and Governments do come and go. And the fact that each shift in territorial government does not reqirewhole sale genocide, is often observed.

The Concept of Sovereignty
Revisited
Jens Bartelson
The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved
​

The first view, the sovereign state is unlikely to remain the main locus of political authority and community in the future. It is challenged by new constellations of authority and community which transcend the divide between the domestic and the international spheres, and will soon be replaced by new forms of political life that know nothing of this distinction.

The second view, the sovereign state is likely to remain a potent source of authority and community even in the future. Those emergent constellations of authority and community that allegedly challenge the predominance of the sovereign state are ultimately only manifestations of its successful sovereignty claims. They are thus indicative of the remarkable endurance of this concept in both theory and practice. When properly understood, therefore, the concept of sovereignty retains much of its explanatory power and normative relevance.

Sovereignty
politics
Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy.​

Most Repectfully,
R

You are starting in the middle.

In international law, the people are "married" to their land. They cannot be removed from their land and their land cannot be taken from them.

According to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship Order, and affirmed by resolution 181, the Palestinians are citizens of Palestine. They are the ones with the right to sovereignty within their defined territory.

I always get a chuckle when Tinmore gives a dissertation on his Disney’fied version of international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Linkiloo, et al,

I had to chuckle at this. Someone has a quick mind.

If people can be married to their land, they can also get divorced from it.

(COMMENT)

There are several examples of people, territory, and laws that could be used as a good example. But the best one for the time period, that fit with the same Allied Powers, and being the same territory by shifting in sovereignty (that comes to mind) is that of Alsace Moselle (formerly the territory of the former Alsace-Lorraine).

• The territory of Alsace-Lorraine was incorporated into the German Empire after France’s defeat in 1871 after the Franco-German War.
• Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France in 1919 by the Allied Powers after the defeat of Germany in World War I.
• In the early part of WWII, after the defeat and occupation of France by Germany, Alsace-Lorraine was annexed by Germany.
• After the defeat of the Axis Powers in 1945, Alsace-Lorraine was returned and re-incorporated into French Republic in 1945 by the Allied Powers.​

As you can see, the nationality of the people and the sovereignty over the territory flip-flopped a couple of times here. The PF Tinmore Posting of 1241 is scrambled.

• It was well after WWII that the concepts in International Law altered to what it is today. But it is certainly not definitive in the Arab - Palestinian Conflict.
• The Treaty of Lausanne does not grant the Arab Palestinians any sovereignty over any territory whatsoever. It does spect to nationality, which follows sovereignty (not the other way around). In the Alsace Moselle example I cited, the nationality and citizenship shifted back-and-forth with the sovereign claim.
• The Palestine Citizenship Order was required at all, only because it pertained to the territory of the subject to the territory under the Mandate. The citizenship order allowed the Government of Palestine (actually the UK) to be recognized. It was necessary because the British did not want a legal slight and make a clear distinction between British Citizenship and Palestinian Citizenship.
• In general, the Resolution 181(II) simply followed the general line of thought.​

"Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."

There is a very distinct difference between the establishment of the two states as recommended. Don't let the wool be pulled over your eyes. This is what we call the "Flim-Flam." In Posting #1238, the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

You are following Israeli say so not the documents of the time. From the Balfour Declaration through the UN Armistice Agreements of 1949, Palestine was the place. After the Treaty of Lausanne, Palestinian was a recognized nationality and the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. Palestine was recognized as a state.

Then Israeli propaganda kicked in. From day one, Israeli say so claimed Israel to be a state and denied the existence of Palestine or the Palestinians. This has been repeated a gazillion times so people are inclined to believe it without question.

Of course there are no historical documents to back up this claim.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Linkiloo, et al,

I had to chuckle at this. Someone has a quick mind.

If people can be married to their land, they can also get divorced from it.

(COMMENT)

There are several examples of people, territory, and laws that could be used as a good example. But the best one for the time period, that fit with the same Allied Powers, and being the same territory by shifting in sovereignty (that comes to mind) is that of Alsace Moselle (formerly the territory of the former Alsace-Lorraine).

• The territory of Alsace-Lorraine was incorporated into the German Empire after France’s defeat in 1871 after the Franco-German War.
• Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France in 1919 by the Allied Powers after the defeat of Germany in World War I.
• In the early part of WWII, after the defeat and occupation of France by Germany, Alsace-Lorraine was annexed by Germany.
• After the defeat of the Axis Powers in 1945, Alsace-Lorraine was returned and re-incorporated into French Republic in 1945 by the Allied Powers.​

As you can see, the nationality of the people and the sovereignty over the territory flip-flopped a couple of times here. The PF Tinmore Posting of 1241 is scrambled.

• It was well after WWII that the concepts in International Law altered to what it is today. But it is certainly not definitive in the Arab - Palestinian Conflict.
• The Treaty of Lausanne does not grant the Arab Palestinians any sovereignty over any territory whatsoever. It does spect to nationality, which follows sovereignty (not the other way around). In the Alsace Moselle example I cited, the nationality and citizenship shifted back-and-forth with the sovereign claim.
• The Palestine Citizenship Order was required at all, only because it pertained to the territory of the subject to the territory under the Mandate. The citizenship order allowed the Government of Palestine (actually the UK) to be recognized. It was necessary because the British did not want a legal slight and make a clear distinction between British Citizenship and Palestinian Citizenship.
• In general, the Resolution 181(II) simply followed the general line of thought.​

"Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."

There is a very distinct difference between the establishment of the two states as recommended. Don't let the wool be pulled over your eyes. This is what we call the "Flim-Flam." In Posting #1238, the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

You are following Israeli say so not the documents of the time. From the Balfour Declaration through the UN Armistice Agreements of 1949, Palestine was the place. After the Treaty of Lausanne, Palestinian was a recognized nationality and the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. Palestine was recognized as a state.

Then Israeli propaganda kicked in. From day one, Israeli say so claimed Israel to be a state and denied the existence of Palestine or the Palestinians. This has been repeated a gazillion times so people are inclined to believe it without question.

Of course there are no historical documents to back up this claim.

It was only a matter of time before Tinmore dumped his nonsensical "Treaty of Lausanne invented the country of Pal'istan", conspiracy theory.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And now you are just being a purveyor of disinformation.

the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

You are following Israeli say so not the documents of the time.

From the Balfour Declaration through the UN Armistice Agreements of 1949, Palestine was the place.

After the Treaty of Lausanne, Palestinian was a recognized nationality and the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. Palestine was recognized as a state.

Then Israeli propaganda kicked in. From day one, Israeli say so claimed Israel to be a state and denied the existence of Palestine or the Palestinians. This has been repeated a gazillion times so people are inclined to believe it without question.

Of course there are no historical documents to back up this claim.

(COMMENT)

As my narratives on "the Legal Entity" obviously have NOT communicated the point well enough, I decided to put this imaging to work. While there might be several documents that probably make the same point, these two documents are probably the best and the sources are readily verifiable.

A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948
MEMORANDUM “A”
• "LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” •

Memorandum - UN Under-Secretaty General for Legal Affairs
• "Issues related to General Assembly Resolution 67/19 2 December 2012" •
​

The mistake that is often made by the use of the term "Palestine" is that the user assume a meaning out of context. But there was no formal political subdivision or administrative autonomous region called "Palestine" during the Ottoman Empire. It was just a local regional name.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If people can be married to their land, they can also get divorced from it.

Don't forget the restraining order.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And now you are just being a purveyor of disinformation.

the discussion was about "territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It was not on the matter of citizenship.

You are following Israeli say so not the documents of the time.

From the Balfour Declaration through the UN Armistice Agreements of 1949, Palestine was the place.

After the Treaty of Lausanne, Palestinian was a recognized nationality and the Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. Palestine was recognized as a state.

Then Israeli propaganda kicked in. From day one, Israeli say so claimed Israel to be a state and denied the existence of Palestine or the Palestinians. This has been repeated a gazillion times so people are inclined to believe it without question.

Of course there are no historical documents to back up this claim.

(COMMENT)

As my narratives on "the Legal Entity" obviously have NOT communicated the point well enough, I decided to put this imaging to work. While there might be several documents that probably make the same point, these two documents are probably the best and the sources are readily verifiable.

View attachment 188869
A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948
MEMORANDUM “A”
• "LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” •

View attachment 188867
Memorandum - UN Under-Secretaty General for Legal Affairs
• "Issues related to General Assembly Resolution 67/19 2 December 2012" •
​

The mistake that is often made by the use of the term "Palestine" is that the user assume a meaning out of context. But there was no formal political subdivision or administrative autonomous region called "Palestine" during the Ottoman Empire. It was just a local regional name.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so?

Define legal entity.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Whatever it is (a construct that can act as one) → it was not a self-governing institution.

Legal entities are constructed and assembled pertaining to whatever it is going to be applied. In the case of Palestine, the LoN first constructed the Mandates not all of them the same, and the Allied Powers made a determination as to which Power assume responsibility.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 19757203, member: 21837"
OK, so?
Define legal entity.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In the case of the Mandate System (a construct) allowed a Nation to act as the parent over the entity (in its entirety) as the Government. Thus, the British acted in the name of the Government of Palestine.

It is not up to you are I to determine what a legal entity is. It is up to the author of the construct to make that clear.

For all intent and purposes, "Palestine" can be referred to as a "State" or "Country" as of December 2012. Whether or not it can be described as "sovereign" or "self-governing" is a whole different matter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whatever it is (a construct that can act as one) → it was not a self-governing institution.

Irrelevant.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the case of the Mandate System (a construct) allowed a Nation to act as the parent over the entity (in its entirety) as the Government. Thus, the British acted in the name of the Government of Palestine.

Indeed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Whatever it is (a construct that can act as one) → it was not a self-governing institution.

Irrelevant.

(QUESTION)

Just how can a entity be Sovereign if it is not self-governing? Get real!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Whatever it is (a construct that can act as one) → it was not a self-governing institution.

Irrelevant.

(QUESTION)

Just how can a entity be Sovereign if it is not self-governing? Get real!

Most Respectfully,
R

You have argued, when it comes to decolonizing, that Palestine is not a non self governing territory.

Make up your mind.

 

[Hollie]

This seems rather pointless. Hamas is paying their minions a fair wage to get themselves injured or killed. Take the work opportunity while it’s available.



Israel Faces New Palestinian Tactic — ‘Kite Terror’

Israel Faces New Palestinian Tactic — ‘Kite Terror’

by Algemeiner Staff


A Palestinian riot on the Israel-Gaza Strip border, April 13, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Ibraheem Abu Mustafa.

For the fourth time in recent days, a kite rigged with a Molotov cocktail was flown by Palestinian terrorists from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip into southern Israel on Tuesday, the Hebrew news outlet Mako reported.

 

[teddyearp]

No, but for sure their leadership is fucking them in the arse.


As are the Palestinians, so why not both? Mutual recognition and peace and respect?

Yay or Nay?

Yay.

Now I demand recognition as one of the few posters at this website who are not afraid to answer direct questions.

In the words of Muhammed Ali...

"It is said that a great man knows his faults; my only fault, is not knowing just how great I really am!"​

LOL and

Welcome to Team Peace. Sure we have our biases, but mutual recognition and respect are on our plate.