Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a direct quote from of the UNIPAL Document Record. A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.

It also states that:

"III. The thrust of the resolution, the above report and the work of Mr. Roed-Larsen and his team

The resolution and the report, as well as the historical records and the various documents and maps, including those in the possession of the United Nations, confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries” that have never been in dispute between the two countries. Indeed, the descriptive delimitation of these boundaries completed in 1923 was meticulously retraced in 1949, under the supervision of the United Nations and its observers, from boundary pillar 1 to boundary pillar 38 by way of all those in between."​

And again in 2000, “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”

This is misleading. For one, there was no Israel in 1923. That was the border between Palestine and Lebanon.

There was no Israel border there in 2000. They created a "Blue Line" for Israel to withdraw over similar to the "Green Line" that was created in 1949 because Israel has no border there. Israel still has no border with Lebanon. Israel only has say so borders.

(COMMENT)

In the correspondence, pertaining to the 21st Century boundary issues of that time, the key parties to the official communication speak in the relative terms of the present day true reality.

They are speaking about the post-War boundary (1949); after the May 1948 establishment of the Jewish State.

Remember, you must excuse those of us that are not solely dedicated to seeing the Arab Palestinian Alternate Reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a direct quote from of the UNIPAL Document Record. A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.

It also states that:

"III. The thrust of the resolution, the above report and the work of Mr. Roed-Larsen and his team

The resolution and the report, as well as the historical records and the various documents and maps, including those in the possession of the United Nations, confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries” that have never been in dispute between the two countries. Indeed, the descriptive delimitation of these boundaries completed in 1923 was meticulously retraced in 1949, under the supervision of the United Nations and its observers, from boundary pillar 1 to boundary pillar 38 by way of all those in between."​

And again in 2000, “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”

This is misleading. For one, there was no Israel in 1923. That was the border between Palestine and Lebanon.

There was no Israel border there in 2000. They created a "Blue Line" for Israel to withdraw over similar to the "Green Line" that was created in 1949 because Israel has no border there. Israel still has no border with Lebanon. Israel only has say so borders.

(COMMENT)

In the correspondence, pertaining to the 21st Century boundary issues of that time, the key parties to the official communication speak in the relative terms of the present day true reality.

They are speaking about the post-War boundary (1949); after the May 1948 establishment of the Jewish State.

Remember, you must excuse those of us that are not solely dedicated to seeing the Arab Palestinian Alternate Reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link:

The most important point is that it cast doubt on the existing international boundaries between Lebanon and Israel and again adopted the principle of the “withdrawal line” rather than the “boundary line”​

Even after the supposed creation of Israel in 1948, the 1949 Armistice Agreement (that Israel signed) called that the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. I have seen nothing that changes the status of that border.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a direct quote from of the UNIPAL Document Record. A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.

It also states that:

"III. The thrust of the resolution, the above report and the work of Mr. Roed-Larsen and his team

The resolution and the report, as well as the historical records and the various documents and maps, including those in the possession of the United Nations, confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries” that have never been in dispute between the two countries. Indeed, the descriptive delimitation of these boundaries completed in 1923 was meticulously retraced in 1949, under the supervision of the United Nations and its observers, from boundary pillar 1 to boundary pillar 38 by way of all those in between."​

And again in 2000, “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”

This is misleading. For one, there was no Israel in 1923. That was the border between Palestine and Lebanon.

There was no Israel border there in 2000. They created a "Blue Line" for Israel to withdraw over similar to the "Green Line" that was created in 1949 because Israel has no border there. Israel still has no border with Lebanon. Israel only has say so borders.

(COMMENT)

In the correspondence, pertaining to the 21st Century boundary issues of that time, the key parties to the official communication speak in the relative terms of the present day true reality.

They are speaking about the post-War boundary (1949); after the May 1948 establishment of the Jewish State.

Remember, you must excuse those of us that are not solely dedicated to seeing the Arab Palestinian Alternate Reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries”

The '67 borders are internationally recognized boundaries but they are not international borders.

Indeed, the descriptive delimitation of these boundaries completed in 1923 was meticulously retraced in 1949,

And that is the armistice line that was specifically not to be a political or territorial border.

Article V​

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949​

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm02.asp

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are still a bit confused. There is no longer a question as to whether it is: • The Red Line, • The Purple Line or the • The Blue Line. Both the S/RES/425 (1978) and the opening lines written by the President of Lebanon in the 7 June 2000 letter are quite clear - as to the Issue of the International Boundary.

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a direct quote from of the UNIPAL Document Record. A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.

It also states that:

"III. The thrust of the resolution, the above report and the work of Mr. Roed-Larsen and his team

The resolution and the report, as well as the historical records and the various documents and maps, including those in the possession of the United Nations, confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries” that have never been in dispute between the two countries. Indeed, the descriptive delimitation of these boundaries completed in 1923 was meticulously retraced in 1949, under the supervision of the United Nations and its observers, from boundary pillar 1 to boundary pillar 38 by way of all those in between."​

And again in 2000, “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”

This is misleading. For one, there was no Israel in 1923. That was the border between Palestine and Lebanon.

There was no Israel border there in 2000. They created a "Blue Line" for Israel to withdraw over similar to the "Green Line" that was created in 1949 because Israel has no border there. Israel still has no border with Lebanon. Israel only has say so borders.

(COMMENT)

In the correspondence, pertaining to the 21st Century boundary issues of that time, the key parties to the official communication speak in the relative terms of the present day true reality.

They are speaking about the post-War boundary (1949); after the May 1948 establishment of the Jewish State.

Remember, you must excuse those of us that are not solely dedicated to seeing the Arab Palestinian Alternate Reality.

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link:

The most important point is that it cast doubt on the existing international boundaries between Lebanon and Israel and again adopted the principle of the “withdrawal line” rather than the “boundary line”​

Even after the supposed creation of Israel in 1948, the 1949 Armistice Agreement (that Israel signed) called that the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. I have seen nothing that changes the status of that border.

(COMMENT)

It is not you that has to recognize the 'international boundary." BUT, if the Lebanese want to enforce the integrity and sovereignty, then they must have some common understanding as to where that territorial boundary is --- created.

The question was: Is there a boundary between Lebanon and Israel? → or → Is there a boundary between Lebanon and Palestine? Clearly, the question most important to the Lebanese of the 21st Century is the question of separation between Lebanese and the Israelis.

To speak of the Palestinians and illusionary boundaries that they do not maintain, do not control, and never have controlled, → is serves no useful purpose at all, other to keep an ever dwindling number of hopeless Arab Palestinians trying desperately to make a sound argument that sometime between the transition from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration → to → the territory to which the Mandate applied, the Arab Palestinians took control of territory.

Honestly, ALL the immediately adjacent nations have already come to grips with Israel, where it is, and what they have effective control over.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

And let's not forget, just because "Palestine" was not a sovereign State in 1922, or in 1948, or in 1983 or in 2000 or in 2012 or even entirely in 2018 -- this does not prohibit her from becoming one. There is no NEED to "prove" that "Palestine" exists. She can come into existence at anytime.

 

[admonit]

And let's not forget, just because "Palestine" was not a sovereign State in 1922, or in 1948, or in 1983 or in 2000 or in 2012 or even entirely in 2018 -- this does not prohibit her from becoming one. There is no NEED to "prove" that "Palestine" exists. She can come into existence at anytime.

Not as a fully sovereign state though.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Argentina with AHED TAMIMI.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ et al,

Yes, our friend "Shusha" presses-out a couple very important points. But while the Arab Palestinians are forever looking backwards, they miss present day opportunities as their Geo-political situation is slowly eroding away.

In a Treatise Experiment ⇒ the first test is in the determination as to the meaning of state sovereignty.
When the Arab Palestinian seeks to redefine the relationship between Palestinian Entity (West Bank + Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel by means of a compact leading to independence, self-government and full sovereignty ⇒ what does that mean?

• Does independence imply self-government?
• Does self-government imply sovereignty?​

Actually, the Arab Palestinians have never actually described their conception. They keep arguing about occupation and the oppression they are under; yet make no attempt to acquire international peace and security and the development of friendly relations and co-operation between nations. They have not been able to demonstrate that they can even make a hand-off of power and authority from one head of state to new elected leader. They do not even have the ability to establish, through what self-governing institutions they do have, civil law enforcement, recognized by the people and able to maintain order and peace.

As the Arab Palestinians take account of their political aspirations as a people,
can they justify their abuse of assistance rendered them in the development
of their free political and self-governing institutions?
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
​

In over a century, there has been very little evidence of the Arab Palestinian yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world. (28 June 1919 →)

And let's not forget, just because "Palestine" was not a sovereign State in 1922, or in 1948, or in 1983 or in 2000 or in 2012 or even entirely in 2018 -- this does not prohibit her from becoming one. There is no NEED to "prove" that "Palestine" exists. She can come into existence at anytime.

(COMMENT)

Actually, I think this is quite profound (having or showing great knowledge or insight).

There is no NEED to "prove" that "Palestine" exists.
She can come into existence at anytime.
__________________________________Shusha, 2018
​

A "right of" is not granted. You already possess it and it cannot be taken from you. When the Arab Palestinian says that they "have the right to → territorial integrity and self-determination" they are not saying anything useful. The "right to" territorial integrity presupposes that you have territory to have integrity over. Similarly, the Arab Palestinian has the "right of" → Self-Determination. If the greatest desire of the Arab Palestinian people is to be the personality seen in the exemplar to when you open the encyclopedia to: terrorist -- there is your picture. If - in over a hundred years, your heroine of the day is a 14 year old female juvenile delinquent famous for crossed the line to abusive and violent behavior towards police; then the Arab Palestinians do not take very much stock in themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

To speak of the Palestinians and illusionary boundaries that they do not maintain, do not control, and never have controlled,

Occupying powers control but that does not negate the Palestinian's rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, the Arab Palestinians have never actually described their conception. They keep arguing about occupation and the oppression they are under; yet make no attempt to acquire international peace and security and the development of friendly relations and co-operation between nations.

Yes they do. Its called BDS.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If - in over a hundred years, your heroine of the day is a 14 year old female juvenile delinquent famous for crossed the line to abusive and violent behavior towards police;

They are not police. They are foreign occupying forces.

 

[Shusha]

And let's not forget, just because "Palestine" was not a sovereign State in 1922, or in 1948, or in 1983 or in 2000 or in 2012 or even entirely in 2018 -- this does not prohibit her from becoming one. There is no NEED to "prove" that "Palestine" exists. She can come into existence at anytime.

Not as a fully sovereign state though.

Why not?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And let's not forget, just because "Palestine" was not a sovereign State in 1922, or in 1948, or in 1983 or in 2000 or in 2012 or even entirely in 2018 -- this does not prohibit her from becoming one. There is no NEED to "prove" that "Palestine" exists. She can come into existence at anytime.

Not as a fully sovereign state though.

Why not?

Military occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

Oh, my. The “Plight of the poor, oppressed welfare fraud society”

 

[P F Tinmore]

2018 James Beard semifinalists: Bay Area women dominate Best Chef West list

Reem Assil, chef at Reem’s California in Oakland, is new to the Best Chef West list.

Among the new additions to the Best Chef West list are 2017 Chronicle Rising Star Chef Reem Assil (Reem’s California, Oakland) who is getting her first James Beard nod less than a year after opening the doors to her namesake bakery in Oakland’s Fruitvale neighborhood.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article...ts-Bay-Area-women-12617010.php#photo-12742586

 

[Hollie]

Hamas tells Nikki Haley: Your peace plan is ‘worthless’

After US diplomat says proposal nearing completion, Gaza-based terror groups vow to thwart American efforts
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH 23 February 2018, 8:28 pm 7

• 

The usual bluster coming from misfits in goofy ski masks.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the question of "rights 'vs' obligations 'vs' entitlements" ⇒

To speak of the Palestinians and illusionary boundaries that they do not maintain, do not control, and never have controlled,

Occupying powers control but that does not negate the Palestinian's rights.

(COMMENT)

Any "right" the Arab Palestinians have - are granted to the Israeli as well... (Part I - CCPR)

• The Arab Palestinian "Right to Self-Determination, and all other rights) does NOT impose an obligation on the part of any other sovereignty; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel.
  
• The Rights of the Arab Palestinian may not interfere with the Rights of the Israeli.
• The Arab Palestinian has no Right to impose an obligation on - or - demand an entitlement of Israel.

Just as the Arab Palestinian has the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development → so it is the case that Israel has the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Israel (like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt) has no obligation to forfeit any of its benefits → based on a claim derived by any right held by the Arab Palestinian.

There is NO right to self-defense (security of the nation) in the CCPR (in fact, except for Article 14, the issue of self-defense is not even raised). That right is derivative from Articles 2 and 51 of the UN Charter; although most Common and Customary Law take it as an unarguable truth.

The Arab Palestinians have NO right to prolong a conflict over territory the Israelis established control over from the Jordanians → and → subsequently abandon by the Jordanians → in favor of leaving the territory in the effective control by the Israelis. And the Israelis have no obligation to surrender the territory to a leadership with the threat of armed conflict and jihad on the table.

"No single answer exists for resolving the intractable RIGHT VS. RIGHT dilemmas;
however, the RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES PRIME provides ways to handle
and resolve colliding rights. Resolution is critical, because getting stuck and
standing still for too long is dangerous and may be fatal to your efforts."
(The Primes Solve any Problem: Right 'vs' Right)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the question of "rights 'vs' obligations 'vs' entitlements" ⇒

To speak of the Palestinians and illusionary boundaries that they do not maintain, do not control, and never have controlled,

Occupying powers control but that does not negate the Palestinian's rights.

(COMMENT)

Any "right" the Arab Palestinians have - are granted to the Israeli as well... (Part I - CCPR)

• The Arab Palestinian "Right to Self-Determination, and all other rights) does NOT impose an obligation on the part of any other sovereignty; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel.
  
• The Rights of the Arab Palestinian may not interfere with the Rights of the Israeli.
• The Arab Palestinian has no Right to impose an obligation on - or - demand an entitlement of Israel.

Just as the Arab Palestinian has the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development → so it is the case that Israel has the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Israel (like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt) has no obligation to forfeit any of its benefits → based on a claim derived by any right held by the Arab Palestinian.

There is NO right to self-defense (security of the nation) in the CCPR (in fact, except for Article 14, the issue of self-defense is not even raised). That right is derivative from Articles 2 and 51 of the UN Charter; although most Common and Customary Law take it as an unarguable truth.

The Arab Palestinians have NO right to prolong a conflict over territory the Israelis established control over from the Jordanians → and → subsequently abandon by the Jordanians → in favor of leaving the territory in the effective control by the Israelis. And the Israelis have no obligation to surrender the territory to a leadership with the threat of armed conflict and jihad on the table.

"No single answer exists for resolving the intractable RIGHT VS. RIGHT dilemmas;
however, the RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES PRIME provides ways to handle
and resolve colliding rights. Resolution is critical, because getting stuck and
standing still for too long is dangerous and may be fatal to your efforts."
(The Primes Solve any Problem: Right 'vs' Right)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do you get all that crap from your link? Could you be more specific?

 

[P F Tinmore]