Justice for the Palestinians

[Phoenall]

Which just happen to be Jews don't they, and so you are once again demonstrating that you want to violate the Jews rights to a home land, free determination and territorial integrity on 22% of the lands of Palestine. Leaving the arab muslims 78% of Palestine as theirs.

Whay are you so set on removing the Jews rights to self determination and territorial integrity, when you push these for the Palestinians when hey already have them. Not Israel's fault the Palestinians are a fractured people with 3 enclaves instead of one unified nation.

What are you blabbering on about? Even the PLO recognized the native Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.

How typically pointless. You should learn your Islamic terrorist history as the PLO used the islamo-slogan "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle. This also included the goal of "destroying the existence of Zionism in the Middle East".

You're choosing to sidestep the insensate Jew hatreds that are a fundamental component of islam'ism. The PLO eventually splintered into many different franchises of Islamic Terrorism Intl., Inc., but none of those franchises were any different from any of the other Islamic terrorist organizations In their core Islamist ideology. All of them demanded that "Moslem lands" be rid of Jews.

You and your Jew hate crap.

“Hamas has no problem with the Jews, the problem is only with the Israeli occupation which is based on the Zionism,” Haneya told reporters after the meeting.

Haneya praised the Jews who “expressed their rejection to the occupation” by joining the aid convoy. “You reject the existence of people on the land of other people, so we have nothing but to respect these positions and appreciate your ideology,” Haneya addressed the rabbis.

Gaza - Hamas Meets Neturei Karta Rabbis in Gaza Strip

Islamonazi propaganda that has no meaning in the real world. Those Jews are speaking for 1,000 Jews only and not for all of Judaism.

Code Pink is a Jewish organization.

Hamas welcomes Code Pink Peace Delegation to Gaza part 1

And at any other time they would throw them from the top of high buildings

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, anotherlife, et al,

It is a matter of perception.

(COMMENT)

Most Belligerents, by the very nature of exhibiting or initiating some sort of continuous conflict or dedicated to an oath not to negotiate or sue for peace, is the most usual reason for a lack of territorial development. Elaborate security countermeasures divert critical funding, capital investments, venture capital contributions and reconstruction revenue for small business, commercial development, and residential establishments.

It is important to remember that, while not all Arab Centric programs, a vast majority are motivated by racism within Islam.

(COMMENT)

First: It is pretty obvious that Israel really doesn't want to Annex the West Bank. If they did that, the Arab Palestinians flood the citizenship population and pick-up freedom of travel across the demarcation. The subterfuge of Jordanian Trusteeship is 100% bogus. But it makes no difference whether the territory was annex (which it was under the right of self-determination) or whether it was occupation. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

View attachment 78606​

As you can see, between 1 August and 14 November 1988, the territory was abandon (Terra Nullius) by the Hashemite Kingdom with the announced intention not to return. There was no Arab Palestinian Authority to assume effective control.

Each pro-Palestinian argument is based on some assumption that

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

Which just happen to be Jews don't they, and so you are once again demonstrating that you want to violate the Jews rights to a home land, free determination and territorial integrity on 22% of the lands of Palestine. Leaving the arab muslims 78% of Palestine as theirs.

Whay are you so set on removing the Jews rights to self determination and territorial integrity, when you push these for the Palestinians when hey already have them. Not Israel's fault the Palestinians are a fractured people with 3 enclaves instead of one unified nation.

What are you blabbering on about? Even the PLO recognized the native Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.

And so they have the right to declare independence on the land they have and invite the worlds Jews to migrate and settle.


OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN REFUSING TO GRANT THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND FOR THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIMS.

This is what the PLO had in mind as well when they made their charter, and removed the rights of the Jews to be Palestinians under international law. The Jews had the right to proclaim the land they were allocated in 1923 as the Jewish nation, the Palestinian arab muslims already had their nation in Trans Jordan. Would you like to do land swaps for all the Jewish lands stolen when trans Jordan was created ?

Many Arab lands were assigned to be annexed by the planned Jew state in 1923. This was done at the excuse of needing a contiguous land area to unite the Jewish holdings. I think the real purpose of that 1923 was to plant the seeds of the ever
lasting conflict.

What arab lands were those then, that were autonomous and self governing in their own right. I cant find one that the Ottomans selected to be self governing and autonomous. Remember that the arab muslims under the Mufti sided with the Ottomans against the British and French and so lost their lands as a consequence. The LoN granted a reprieve to the arab muslim Palestinians and gave them trans Jordan as a peace offering under the leadership of a Hashemite ruler.
The Jewish NATIONal home was planned in 1917 and came to fruition in 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Again we see a poorly educated person relying on islamonazi and anti semitic history books to base their POV on.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, there is room to quibble.

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

​

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

(COMMENT)

​

As you are so fond of pointing out, under the Declarative Theory, recognition is not a requirement.

CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES][/SIZE]
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, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

​

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is cited but not an effective argument.

On 31 July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom did disengage from the West Bank, but I believe you are mistaken about PLO recognition. During the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 the Arab League recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the “sole and legitimate” representative of the Palestinian people, despite earlier objections by King Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom, who had sought the role for himself. UN Resolution 3237 (XXIX) (1974) marks and frames the extend to which the PLO Observer Status may participate.

HAVING SAID all that, on 31 JULY 1988 did mark the absence and abandonment of the West Bank by Jordan, and the only established government remaining in effective control was Israel. The was no demonstration of effective control by the PLO or any other Arab activity in the West Bank. Whether of not we look at (arguably recognize) the Arab Palestinian inhabitance or not, they did not have effective control.

While the PLO was the sole legitimate representative or not, they did not have a successor government in place to establish effective control on 31 JULY 1988.

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, that seems to be the generally accepted status; but I think that is more the outcome of the fact that Israel was much more interested in the establishment of defensible borders; with virtually no interest in the Annexation of the West Bank. It was well within Israel's preview to contested the Arab Palestinian claim made in November 1988 (Independence). It was more the case that for Israel, the West Bank was generally dead wait, unable to meet Article 22 Criteria to be able to stand alone, and a bad investment politically and monetarily. Israel could simple not see any political or diplomatic advantage. As previously noted, in 1967, the US Chairman of the Joint Chief's (MEMO JCSM 373-67) indicated that "from a strict military point of view, Israel would require the retention of captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders."

The Arab Palestinian perspective, while real, did not (nor was any Arab really expected to) take into consideration as the paramount objective, as the preservation of the State of Israel and the absolute protection of the Jewish National Home. The individual member nations of the Arab League can be as militarily inept as many time as they attack, and they general just suffer casualties. Hell, the Israelis have the entire Egyptian 3d Army cut-off in the 1973 Yom Kipper War; with Israeli armor elements on the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal. BUT, if Israel loses just once, the Jewish National Home (JNH) falls into the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). And since the JNH means much more to the Israelis as the do the lives, health, welfare, and economic and commercial growth does to the HoAP and Arab League in general, Israel must prepare a more than adequate defense today. It is in the position that no armed forces have come to the aid of the Jewish State in the past, and there is no reason to believe that allies would come to their defense in any future conflict to prevent the crush of the JNH. Israel can stand alone under Article 22 Criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

While the PLO was the sole legitimate representative or not, they did not have a successor government in place to establish effective control on 31 JULY 1988.​

You keep posting this piece of irrelevance. A government and state are the results of the exercise of the right to self determination, not a prerequisite.

The prevention of this exercise by foreign powers is illegal external interference.

And here is the fallacy as they did not have the means to control the west bank until Israel and the US interfered in 1999 at Oslo and set up the framework for the Palestinian National Assembly as an intermediate government until such time as they could hold elections. It was never foreign powers that that prevented the Palestinians from doing anything, it was the Palestinians themselves. So when have they ever shown the ability to engage in self determination, a concept that cant be withheld or granted, but must be exercised by the people ?

 

[Shusha]

“Hamas has no problem with the Jews, the problem is only with the Israeli occupation which is based on the Zionism,” Haneya told reporters after the meeting.

Translation: Hamas has no problem with Jews, as long as Jews are denied the same rights which Hamas demand for themselves.

 

[Shusha]

Not true. All Palestinians had the same rights. That means that no one group could pig the place for themselves.

It is so ironic that you say this, yet continue to argue vehemently against your own thoughts.

 

[Boston1]

Tinmore is like the class clown, I suspect she's trying to be just this funny.

The facts have been spelled out a thousand times and still she goes on with the Nazi rhetoric

 

[anotherlife]

anotherlife, et al,

When I came home and took my final posting on the front porch with my dog, I left behind a system. In many Embassies (not all) across the world (but especially troubled states), you will find a section call the Rule of Law (RoL) (most of the time it is a Department of Justice activity); and you'll find an adjacent section for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) (most of the time a StateDepartment Activity). This is not a new set of programs; nor are they likely to last long in their current form. But the intent is to enhance the understandings of the need for consistent laws, and promote the substantive provisions of domestic civil and criminal laws, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law.

Under the concept of the customary international law (focusing on our topic of Justice for the Palestinians --- and the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation), the First Principle of Law is (besides play nice with others) all States (Israel and Palestine included) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means. And of course, the Second Big Principle is DO NOT intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State (Israel and Palestine included).

In legalese we say: play nice and stay in you own yard. I know that is is hard for some people to get it (I see them argue these basics all the time), but that is the summation of the salient points. These are the foundation upon which all the associated principles are derived concerning "friendly diplomatic relations." It is the connection to the discussions we have on the application for wars of aggression.

If you forget where you are in the argument in the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (or any conflict for that matter), just ask yourself:

• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Play Nice"
• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Stay IN YOUR Own Yard.
​

But this logic does nothing but legalize the same powers that create the conflict in the first place, buy making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict.

(COMMENT)

There was a famous Federal Judge (when I was you and starting out) wrote two book called: Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice; by Judge Richard Posner. Few books ever shifted my way of thinking than these two books.

First, let's make this very clear: There is nothing about sovereignty that deals with "the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict."
Second: Nothing about sovereignty has anything to do with "by making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity."

One is about national authority, and the other is about malfeasance under the color of law. The intent to "continue the conflict" is merely a variation on the theme to violate "PLAY NICE and STAY IN YOUR OWN YARD."

Remember, if the lawmakers in D.C. decides to sell the State of Ohio to Canada, I still own my own home, own my money, and have an identity for the internet to steal. Yes a lot changes. I'll have to learn the words to "Oh Canada," get an Oak Leak Flag, change my Passport, I'll pay taxes to Ottawa instead of D.C., I'll have smarter politicians and less corrupt government, and I'll have to find a picture of Queen ELIZABETH II and figure out who the Governor General... Yeah there would be a few minor adjustments, but I could get there from here. I guess instead of being an Italian American, I would be a American-Canadian. (I'll just say Canadian, it rolls of the tongue easier.

Legalese is the modern word for such clever looting against farmers.

(COMMENT)

Well, there are always two sides to every coin and five sides to a pyramid; and for something as complicated as the Palestinian conflict - we would need to have the 12 sides of a dodecahedron (we might even have to stick two of them together).

Something peripheral to this issue is the idea that no matter how bad things have been between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians,

Litmus was a crook. It is sad that anything he said is now called a test. So I don't understand your point.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I like this. I think Litmus (the compound) Paper and Tests go back to (oh I don't know) four, five or six centuries. Well before Sir Isaac Newton, and there were no NAZI's then, coming ≈200 years later.

The Litmus Test as a description can apply to philosophical discussions. It just means a decisive test.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is very interesting. International law is very interesting. I don't understand et all, what the "stay in your own yard" means, when the yards were cut out in Paris and London, all without asking if the Palestinians wanted the yard border division across the center of their village or not. And such a division as it exists today, plus many other divisions on the map of Europe too, were drawn way after 1899 and 1907, so the yard itself is already a violation of international law then.

Also, the Canada example is not good enough. Maybe try Mexico, but add that your English mother tongue would be outlawed and you would be forced to go to a Catholic Church, even if you are Protestant. Then we can begin the check on what the loss of identity means.

 

[anotherlife]

Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."

On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course the Palestinians, the legal inhabitants of the land, consider it occupied Palestinian territory.

Which just happen to be Jews don't they, and so you are once again demonstrating that you want to violate the Jews rights to a home land, free determination and territorial integrity on 22% of the lands of Palestine. Leaving the arab muslims 78% of Palestine as theirs.

Whay are you so set on removing the Jews rights to self determination and territorial integrity, when you push these for the Palestinians when hey already have them. Not Israel's fault the Palestinians are a fractured people with 3 enclaves instead of one unified nation.

What are you blabbering on about? Even the PLO recognized the native Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.

And so they have the right to declare independence on the land they have and invite the worlds Jews to migrate and settle.


OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN REFUSING TO GRANT THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND FOR THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIMS.

This is what the PLO had in mind as well when they made their charter, and removed the rights of the Jews to be Palestinians under international law. The Jews had the right to proclaim the land they were allocated in 1923 as the Jewish nation, the Palestinian arab muslims already had their nation in Trans Jordan. Would you like to do land swaps for all the Jewish lands stolen when trans Jordan was created ?

Many Arab lands were assigned to be annexed by the planned Jew state in 1923. This was done at the excuse of needing a contiguous land area to unite the Jewish holdings. I think the real purpose of that 1923 was to plant the seeds of the ever
lasting conflict.

What arab lands were those then, that were autonomous and self governing in their own right. I cant find one that the Ottomans selected to be self governing and autonomous. Remember that the arab muslims under the Mufti sided with the Ottomans against the British and French and so lost their lands as a consequence. The LoN granted a reprieve to the arab muslim Palestinians and gave them trans Jordan as a peace offering under the leadership of a Hashemite ruler.
The Jewish NATIONal home was planned in 1917 and came to fruition in 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Again we see a poorly educated person relying on islamonazi and anti semitic history books to base their POV on.

Islamonazi? I have a good word too, judeo-communist. Which one is better? Apart from this, if you are saying that taking away the lands of Arab farmers is a spoils of war for those who went against the ottomans, then you have just licensed the conflict in Israel-Palestine. Or why do you think the Arabs should have no right to a rematch?

 

[Phoenall]

anotherlife, et al,

When I came home and took my final posting on the front porch with my dog, I left behind a system. In many Embassies (not all) across the world (but especially troubled states), you will find a section call the Rule of Law (RoL) (most of the time it is a Department of Justice activity); and you'll find an adjacent section for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) (most of the time a StateDepartment Activity). This is not a new set of programs; nor are they likely to last long in their current form. But the intent is to enhance the understandings of the need for consistent laws, and promote the substantive provisions of domestic civil and criminal laws, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law.

Under the concept of the customary international law (focusing on our topic of Justice for the Palestinians --- and the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation), the First Principle of Law is (besides play nice with others) all States (Israel and Palestine included) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means. And of course, the Second Big Principle is DO NOT intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State (Israel and Palestine included).

In legalese we say: play nice and stay in you own yard. I know that is is hard for some people to get it (I see them argue these basics all the time), but that is the summation of the salient points. These are the foundation upon which all the associated principles are derived concerning "friendly diplomatic relations." It is the connection to the discussions we have on the application for wars of aggression.

If you forget where you are in the argument in the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (or any conflict for that matter), just ask yourself:

• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Play Nice"
• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Stay IN YOUR Own Yard.
​

But this logic does nothing but legalize the same powers that create the conflict in the first place, buy making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict.

(COMMENT)

There was a famous Federal Judge (when I was you and starting out) wrote two book called: Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice; by Judge Richard Posner. Few books ever shifted my way of thinking than these two books.

First, let's make this very clear: There is nothing about sovereignty that deals with "the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict."
Second: Nothing about sovereignty has anything to do with "by making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity."

One is about national authority, and the other is about malfeasance under the color of law. The intent to "continue the conflict" is merely a variation on the theme to violate "PLAY NICE and STAY IN YOUR OWN YARD."

Remember, if the lawmakers in D.C. decides to sell the State of Ohio to Canada, I still own my own home, own my money, and have an identity for the internet to steal. Yes a lot changes. I'll have to learn the words to "Oh Canada," get an Oak Leak Flag, change my Passport, I'll pay taxes to Ottawa instead of D.C., I'll have smarter politicians and less corrupt government, and I'll have to find a picture of Queen ELIZABETH II and figure out who the Governor General... Yeah there would be a few minor adjustments, but I could get there from here. I guess instead of being an Italian American, I would be a American-Canadian. (I'll just say Canadian, it rolls of the tongue easier.

Legalese is the modern word for such clever looting against farmers.

(COMMENT)

Well, there are always two sides to every coin and five sides to a pyramid; and for something as complicated as the Palestinian conflict - we would need to have the 12 sides of a dodecahedron (we might even have to stick two of them together).

Something peripheral to this issue is the idea that no matter how bad things have been between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians,

Litmus was a crook. It is sad that anything he said is now called a test. So I don't understand your point.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I like this. I think Litmus (the compound) Paper and Tests go back to (oh I don't know) four, five or six centuries. Well before Sir Isaac Newton, and there were no NAZI's then, coming ≈200 years later.

The Litmus Test as a description can apply to philosophical discussions. It just means a decisive test.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is very interesting. International law is very interesting. I don't understand et all, what the "stay in your own yard" means, when the yards were cut out in Paris and London, all without asking if the Palestinians wanted the yard border division across the center of their village or not. And such a division as it exists today, plus many other divisions on the map of Europe too, were drawn way after 1899 and 1907, so the yard itself is already a violation of international law then.

Also, the Canada example is not good enough. Maybe try Mexico, but add that your English mother tongue would be outlawed and you would be forced to go to a Catholic Church, even if you are Protestant. Then we can begin the check on what the loss of identity means.

Because those Palestinians did not exist, and they had no say in the matter, ownership of the land passed from Ottoman to LoN to Jewish. At no time was it ever arab muslim owned. And what international laws are they in breach of, date of implementation please ?

 

[Phoenall]

Which just happen to be Jews don't they, and so you are once again demonstrating that you want to violate the Jews rights to a home land, free determination and territorial integrity on 22% of the lands of Palestine. Leaving the arab muslims 78% of Palestine as theirs.

Whay are you so set on removing the Jews rights to self determination and territorial integrity, when you push these for the Palestinians when hey already have them. Not Israel's fault the Palestinians are a fractured people with 3 enclaves instead of one unified nation.

What are you blabbering on about? Even the PLO recognized the native Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.

And so they have the right to declare independence on the land they have and invite the worlds Jews to migrate and settle.


OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN REFUSING TO GRANT THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND FOR THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIMS.

This is what the PLO had in mind as well when they made their charter, and removed the rights of the Jews to be Palestinians under international law. The Jews had the right to proclaim the land they were allocated in 1923 as the Jewish nation, the Palestinian arab muslims already had their nation in Trans Jordan. Would you like to do land swaps for all the Jewish lands stolen when trans Jordan was created ?

Many Arab lands were assigned to be annexed by the planned Jew state in 1923. This was done at the excuse of needing a contiguous land area to unite the Jewish holdings. I think the real purpose of that 1923 was to plant the seeds of the ever
lasting conflict.

What arab lands were those then, that were autonomous and self governing in their own right. I cant find one that the Ottomans selected to be self governing and autonomous. Remember that the arab muslims under the Mufti sided with the Ottomans against the British and French and so lost their lands as a consequence. The LoN granted a reprieve to the arab muslim Palestinians and gave them trans Jordan as a peace offering under the leadership of a Hashemite ruler.
The Jewish NATIONal home was planned in 1917 and came to fruition in 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Again we see a poorly educated person relying on islamonazi and anti semitic history books to base their POV on.

Islamonazi? I have a good word too, judeo-communist. Which one is better? Apart from this, if you are saying that taking away the lands of Arab farmers is a spoils of war for those who went against the ottomans, then you have just licensed the conflict in Israel-Palestine. Or why do you think the Arabs should have no right to a rematch?

They did not own the lands so how was it taken away. Many begged the Jews to buy the land as they could not make it viable due to lack of will power. So the land was not taken away it was given away. You can make up any term you want but be aware that if there is no evidence to support your made up term then it is a RACIST ANTI SEMITIC term and could result in repercussions.



How many more rematches do you want, you have been beaten soundly every day since may 15 1948.

 

[anotherlife]

anotherlife, et al,

When I came home and took my final posting on the front porch with my dog, I left behind a system. In many Embassies (not all) across the world (but especially troubled states), you will find a section call the Rule of Law (RoL) (most of the time it is a Department of Justice activity); and you'll find an adjacent section for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) (most of the time a StateDepartment Activity). This is not a new set of programs; nor are they likely to last long in their current form. But the intent is to enhance the understandings of the need for consistent laws, and promote the substantive provisions of domestic civil and criminal laws, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law.

Under the concept of the customary international law (focusing on our topic of Justice for the Palestinians --- and the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation), the First Principle of Law is (besides play nice with others) all States (Israel and Palestine included) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means. And of course, the Second Big Principle is DO NOT intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State (Israel and Palestine included).

In legalese we say: play nice and stay in you own yard. I know that is is hard for some people to get it (I see them argue these basics all the time), but that is the summation of the salient points. These are the foundation upon which all the associated principles are derived concerning "friendly diplomatic relations." It is the connection to the discussions we have on the application for wars of aggression.

If you forget where you are in the argument in the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (or any conflict for that matter), just ask yourself:

• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Play Nice"
• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Stay IN YOUR Own Yard.
​

But this logic does nothing but legalize the same powers that create the conflict in the first place, buy making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict.

(COMMENT)

There was a famous Federal Judge (when I was you and starting out) wrote two book called: Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice; by Judge Richard Posner. Few books ever shifted my way of thinking than these two books.

First, let's make this very clear: There is nothing about sovereignty that deals with "the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict."
Second: Nothing about sovereignty has anything to do with "by making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity."

One is about national authority, and the other is about malfeasance under the color of law. The intent to "continue the conflict" is merely a variation on the theme to violate "PLAY NICE and STAY IN YOUR OWN YARD."

Remember, if the lawmakers in D.C. decides to sell the State of Ohio to Canada, I still own my own home, own my money, and have an identity for the internet to steal. Yes a lot changes. I'll have to learn the words to "Oh Canada," get an Oak Leak Flag, change my Passport, I'll pay taxes to Ottawa instead of D.C., I'll have smarter politicians and less corrupt government, and I'll have to find a picture of Queen ELIZABETH II and figure out who the Governor General... Yeah there would be a few minor adjustments, but I could get there from here. I guess instead of being an Italian American, I would be a American-Canadian. (I'll just say Canadian, it rolls of the tongue easier.

Legalese is the modern word for such clever looting against farmers.

(COMMENT)

Well, there are always two sides to every coin and five sides to a pyramid; and for something as complicated as the Palestinian conflict - we would need to have the 12 sides of a dodecahedron (we might even have to stick two of them together).

Something peripheral to this issue is the idea that no matter how bad things have been between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians,

Litmus was a crook. It is sad that anything he said is now called a test. So I don't understand your point.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I like this. I think Litmus (the compound) Paper and Tests go back to (oh I don't know) four, five or six centuries. Well before Sir Isaac Newton, and there were no NAZI's then, coming ≈200 years later.

The Litmus Test as a description can apply to philosophical discussions. It just means a decisive test.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is very interesting. International law is very interesting. I don't understand et all, what the "stay in your own yard" means, when the yards were cut out in Paris and London, all without asking if the Palestinians wanted the yard border division across the center of their village or not. And such a division as it exists today, plus many other divisions on the map of Europe too, were drawn way after 1899 and 1907, so the yard itself is already a violation of international law then.

Also, the Canada example is not good enough. Maybe try Mexico, but add that your English mother tongue would be outlawed and you would be forced to go to a Catholic Church, even if you are Protestant. Then we can begin the check on what the loss of identity means.

Because those Palestinians did not exist, and they had no say in the matter, ownership of the land passed from Ottoman to LoN to Jewish. At no time was it ever arab muslim owned. And what international laws are they in breach of, date of implementation please ?

If they didn't exist, then how did they suddenly appear by the millions in 1948? The two Hague laws that were described earlier, in 1899 and 1907.

What are you blabbering on about? Even the PLO recognized the native Jews as legitimate citizens of Palestine.

And so they have the right to declare independence on the land they have and invite the worlds Jews to migrate and settle.


OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN REFUSING TO GRANT THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND FOR THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIMS.

This is what the PLO had in mind as well when they made their charter, and removed the rights of the Jews to be Palestinians under international law. The Jews had the right to proclaim the land they were allocated in 1923 as the Jewish nation, the Palestinian arab muslims already had their nation in Trans Jordan. Would you like to do land swaps for all the Jewish lands stolen when trans Jordan was created ?

Many Arab lands were assigned to be annexed by the planned Jew state in 1923. This was done at the excuse of needing a contiguous land area to unite the Jewish holdings. I think the real purpose of that 1923 was to plant the seeds of the ever
lasting conflict.

What arab lands were those then, that were autonomous and self governing in their own right. I cant find one that the Ottomans selected to be self governing and autonomous. Remember that the arab muslims under the Mufti sided with the Ottomans against the British and French and so lost their lands as a consequence. The LoN granted a reprieve to the arab muslim Palestinians and gave them trans Jordan as a peace offering under the leadership of a Hashemite ruler.
The Jewish NATIONal home was planned in 1917 and came to fruition in 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Again we see a poorly educated person relying on islamonazi and anti semitic history books to base their POV on.

Islamonazi? I have a good word too, judeo-communist. Which one is better? Apart from this, if you are saying that taking away the lands of Arab farmers is a spoils of war for those who went against the ottomans, then you have just licensed the conflict in Israel-Palestine. Or why do you think the Arabs should have no right to a rematch?

They did not own the lands so how was it taken away. Many begged the Jews to buy the land as they could not make it viable due to lack of will power. So the land was not taken away it was given away. You can make up any term you want but be aware that if there is no evidence to support your made up term then it is a RACIST ANTI SEMITIC term and could result in repercussions.



How many more rematches do you want, you have been beaten soundly every day since may 15 1948.

What is the term that you think I made up? Interesting. And what repercussions do you have in mind? Do you mean what Voltaire said, that if you want to know who oppresses you then just find out who you are not allowed to criticize? And what kind of evidence would you like? The one that the victors write for history, or the one that the victors write for history? Now we know why history repeats itself. Hehehe.

 

[Kondor3]

...It is illegal to annex occupied territory...

Not to worry...

Worked for Russia, in connection with the Crimea...

Worked for China, in connection with Tibet...

Wake us up, when somebody fusses about those, with equal vigor and persistence...

Until then... MEH... no big deal...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This makes no sense. Either you have a government exercising authority over a defined area, or you do not. The "right" gets you nothing. To say that you have a state because you can write it on a piece of paper means nothing. Do you actually have control of some territory?

While the PLO was the sole legitimate representative or not, they did not have a successor government in place to establish effective control on 31 JULY 1988.

You keep posting this piece of irrelevance. A government and state are the results of the exercise of the right to self determination, not a prerequisite.

The prevention of this exercise by foreign powers is illegal external interference.

(QUESTION)

To say that you have a state because you can write it on a piece of paper means nothing.

Do you actually have control of some territory?
Did you have control of any territory in the region between 1948 and 1967?​

• What territory did the ArabPalestinians have effective or exclusive control on 1 August 1988?
• What was the name of sovereignty over the territory to which Israel represented an external interference?

There was a State of War initiate by the Arab League in 1948 involving the West Bank. The Jordanians broke the ceasefire by engaging Israeli forces in 1967. When hostilities resumed and Jordanian forces withdrew:

• What country established effective control?

For whatever excuse you want to give, the Arab Palestinians could not establish a functioning government. The Arab Palestinians could not elect and peacefully hand-off the government from the old to the new regime.

MostRespectfully,
R

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

 

[Phoenall]

anotherlife, et al,

When I came home and took my final posting on the front porch with my dog, I left behind a system. In many Embassies (not all) across the world (but especially troubled states), you will find a section call the Rule of Law (RoL) (most of the time it is a Department of Justice activity); and you'll find an adjacent section for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) (most of the time a StateDepartment Activity). This is not a new set of programs; nor are they likely to last long in their current form. But the intent is to enhance the understandings of the need for consistent laws, and promote the substantive provisions of domestic civil and criminal laws, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, are considered as embodying rules of customary international law.

Under the concept of the customary international law (focusing on our topic of Justice for the Palestinians --- and the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation), the First Principle of Law is (besides play nice with others) all States (Israel and Palestine included) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means. And of course, the Second Big Principle is DO NOT intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State (Israel and Palestine included).

In legalese we say: play nice and stay in you own yard. I know that is is hard for some people to get it (I see them argue these basics all the time), but that is the summation of the salient points. These are the foundation upon which all the associated principles are derived concerning "friendly diplomatic relations." It is the connection to the discussions we have on the application for wars of aggression.

If you forget where you are in the argument in the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (or any conflict for that matter), just ask yourself:

• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Play Nice"
• Does my argument violate the Principle of: Stay IN YOUR Own Yard.
​

But this logic does nothing but legalize the same powers that create the conflict in the first place, buy making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict.

(COMMENT)

There was a famous Federal Judge (when I was you and starting out) wrote two book called: Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice; by Judge Richard Posner. Few books ever shifted my way of thinking than these two books.

First, let's make this very clear: There is nothing about sovereignty that deals with "the working people's land, money, and identity, only to continue the conflict."
Second: Nothing about sovereignty has anything to do with "by making it legal to take away the working people's land, money, and identity."

One is about national authority, and the other is about malfeasance under the color of law. The intent to "continue the conflict" is merely a variation on the theme to violate "PLAY NICE and STAY IN YOUR OWN YARD."

Remember, if the lawmakers in D.C. decides to sell the State of Ohio to Canada, I still own my own home, own my money, and have an identity for the internet to steal. Yes a lot changes. I'll have to learn the words to "Oh Canada," get an Oak Leak Flag, change my Passport, I'll pay taxes to Ottawa instead of D.C., I'll have smarter politicians and less corrupt government, and I'll have to find a picture of Queen ELIZABETH II and figure out who the Governor General... Yeah there would be a few minor adjustments, but I could get there from here. I guess instead of being an Italian American, I would be a American-Canadian. (I'll just say Canadian, it rolls of the tongue easier.

Legalese is the modern word for such clever looting against farmers.

(COMMENT)

Well, there are always two sides to every coin and five sides to a pyramid; and for something as complicated as the Palestinian conflict - we would need to have the 12 sides of a dodecahedron (we might even have to stick two of them together).

Something peripheral to this issue is the idea that no matter how bad things have been between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians,

Litmus was a crook. It is sad that anything he said is now called a test. So I don't understand your point.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I like this. I think Litmus (the compound) Paper and Tests go back to (oh I don't know) four, five or six centuries. Well before Sir Isaac Newton, and there were no NAZI's then, coming ≈200 years later.

The Litmus Test as a description can apply to philosophical discussions. It just means a decisive test.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is very interesting. International law is very interesting. I don't understand et all, what the "stay in your own yard" means, when the yards were cut out in Paris and London, all without asking if the Palestinians wanted the yard border division across the center of their village or not. And such a division as it exists today, plus many other divisions on the map of Europe too, were drawn way after 1899 and 1907, so the yard itself is already a violation of international law then.

Also, the Canada example is not good enough. Maybe try Mexico, but add that your English mother tongue would be outlawed and you would be forced to go to a Catholic Church, even if you are Protestant. Then we can begin the check on what the loss of identity means.

Because those Palestinians did not exist, and they had no say in the matter, ownership of the land passed from Ottoman to LoN to Jewish. At no time was it ever arab muslim owned. And what international laws are they in breach of, date of implementation please ?

If they didn't exist, then how did they suddenly appear by the millions in 1948? The two Hague laws that were described earlier, in 1899 and 1907.

And so they have the right to declare independence on the land they have and invite the worlds Jews to migrate and settle.


OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN REFUSING TO GRANT THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DEMAND FOR THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIMS.

This is what the PLO had in mind as well when they made their charter, and removed the rights of the Jews to be Palestinians under international law. The Jews had the right to proclaim the land they were allocated in 1923 as the Jewish nation, the Palestinian arab muslims already had their nation in Trans Jordan. Would you like to do land swaps for all the Jewish lands stolen when trans Jordan was created ?

Many Arab lands were assigned to be annexed by the planned Jew state in 1923. This was done at the excuse of needing a contiguous land area to unite the Jewish holdings. I think the real purpose of that 1923 was to plant the seeds of the ever
lasting conflict.

What arab lands were those then, that were autonomous and self governing in their own right. I cant find one that the Ottomans selected to be self governing and autonomous. Remember that the arab muslims under the Mufti sided with the Ottomans against the British and French and so lost their lands as a consequence. The LoN granted a reprieve to the arab muslim Palestinians and gave them trans Jordan as a peace offering under the leadership of a Hashemite ruler.
The Jewish NATIONal home was planned in 1917 and came to fruition in 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Again we see a poorly educated person relying on islamonazi and anti semitic history books to base their POV on.

Islamonazi? I have a good word too, judeo-communist. Which one is better? Apart from this, if you are saying that taking away the lands of Arab farmers is a spoils of war for those who went against the ottomans, then you have just licensed the conflict in Israel-Palestine. Or why do you think the Arabs should have no right to a rematch?

They did not own the lands so how was it taken away. Many begged the Jews to buy the land as they could not make it viable due to lack of will power. So the land was not taken away it was given away. You can make up any term you want but be aware that if there is no evidence to support your made up term then it is a RACIST ANTI SEMITIC term and could result in repercussions.



How many more rematches do you want, you have been beaten soundly every day since may 15 1948.

What is the term that you think I made up? Interesting. And what repercussions do you have in mind? Do you mean what Voltaire said, that if you want to know who oppresses you then just find out who you are not allowed to criticize? And what kind of evidence would you like? The one that the victors write for history, or the one that the victors write for history? Now we know why history repeats itself. Hehehe.

That is easy as all you need do is look at what the arab league was doing from 1947 when they knew they had lost the M.E. for good. They moved them to the area as part of the arab league combined forces while moving the inhabitants the other way. Then when the war went pear shaped and they were being beaten by farmers with pop guns and farm tools the soldiers deserted and claimed to be refugees. They were in their tens of thousands not millions as you claim, and the UN had to create a new refugee group because so many did not have the required 2 years residency needed, so UNWRA was born.

Before 1947 the arab muslims amounted to a total population, including arab Palestine, of 350,000 people


Your term judeo communist of course as like zionazi it is an oxymoron and these are used by islamomorons because they don't understand what an oxymoron is.
Force of law depending on where you live, in Europe the racism laws are very strict and if a European warrant was issued you could face prison for your crime. In the US you could be shot by a disgruntled person who takes offence at your words.

You can criticize all you want as long as you don't use the saw to hide your racism, whish is what you are doing. You are not criticizing you are being full on racist and hiding behind Voltaire. Something that all Jew haters do to cover for their racism

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This makes no sense. Either you have a government exercising authority over a defined area, or you do not. The "right" gets you nothing. To say that you have a state because you can write it on a piece of paper means nothing. Do you actually have control of some territory?

While the PLO was the sole legitimate representative or not, they did not have a successor government in place to establish effective control on 31 JULY 1988.

You keep posting this piece of irrelevance. A government and state are the results of the exercise of the right to self determination, not a prerequisite.

The prevention of this exercise by foreign powers is illegal external interference.

(QUESTION)

To say that you have a state because you can write it on a piece of paper means nothing.

Do you actually have control of some territory?
Did you have control of any territory in the region between 1948 and 1967?​

• What territory did the ArabPalestinians have effective or exclusive control on 1 August 1988?
• What was the name of sovereignty over the territory to which Israel represented an external interference?

There was a State of War initiate by the Arab League in 1948 involving the West Bank. The Jordanians broke the ceasefire by engaging Israeli forces in 1967. When hostilities resumed and Jordanian forces withdrew:

• What country established effective control?

For whatever excuse you want to give, the Arab Palestinians could not establish a functioning government. The Arab Palestinians could not elect and peacefully hand-off the government from the old to the new regime.

MostRespectfully,
R

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

And in this case the care is Palestine and the crooks are the arab muslims that invaded from 1920 on over.

Yes you do and see the crooks punished for their crimes

You post pages of lies hoping that no one will notice, and then ask moronic questions when they do


How does your post answer the points raised ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.
​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

I don't get this continuous debating over the past. We should work for justice for both the Israelis and Palestinians NOW.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

I don't get this continuous debating over the past. We should work for justice for both the Israelis and Palestinians NOW.

Indeed, the Palestinians are working on that now. Israel is fighting against it.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

I don't get this continuous debating over the past. We should work for justice for both the Israelis and Palestinians NOW.

Indeed, the Palestinians are working on that now. Israel is fighting against it.

Indeed, such islamo-taqiyya is pointless and time wasting.

The islamo-spokesbeards in Hamas have stated their position clearly as recently as their last Islamic terrorist fashion parade.

Hamas holds Gaza military parade, vows Israel's destruction | Reuters


Reuters) - Vowing to destroy Israel, Hamas paraded some 2,000 of its armed fighters and truck-mounted rockets through Gaza on Sunday, marking its 27th anniversary with its biggest show of force since the end of the Gaza war this summer.