P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,799
- 4,414
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #11,741
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Link?If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.
Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.
Why would they want to change their borders?I have sent you the recognized borders for Israel and Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt several times. The entity masquerading as the State of Palestine has declined to negotiate at all on the borders.
Why would they want to change their borders?I have sent you the recognized borders for Israel and Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt several times. The entity masquerading as the State of Palestine has declined to negotiate at all on the borders.
Link?If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.
Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.
Link?If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.
Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.
Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?
Then why do you blabber on about something you can't prove? If you can't prove it, it is a lie.Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.Link?If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.
Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.
Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?
Link?If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.
Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.
Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?Then why do you blabber on about something you can't prove? If you can't prove it, it is a lie.Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
The US said that Palestine was a state. The PCIJ said that Palestine was a state.Link?If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.
Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.
Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
Link me anything, anything at all, demonstrating that your "Palestine" has a government and is engaging in relations with other States. A single treaty or document between 1948 and 1988. Anything. What you got?Then why do you blabber on about something you can't prove? If you can't prove it, it is a lie.Can't prove a negative. How about you prove the positive.
Oh I have dozens of documents to prove the existence of any country you care to name.
Have you got even one to prove the existence of Atlantis. Um I mean Palestine?