Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I' m not confusing a damn thing.

◈ IF I say that Jordan had "effective control" (a necessary condition for an Occupation under the Hague Regulation) over the West Bank, THEN you've consistently called that the use of "Military Force" (your "under the Gun" by a foreign power analogy). And under "effective control" you contend that the Arab Palestinians (not party to the conflict) could not freely exercise their self-determination. And THEN you play the "I'm Confused Card."​

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion. Your deduction is that the Arab Palestinian cannot execute "self-determination" if they are under "effective control."

◈ IF I say that Jordan established sovereignty over the West Bank, THEN you'll claim that the Arab Palestinians were coerced (until military governorship) into voting for the acceptance of Jordanian sovereignty. And that is not true "self-determination."​

You are still confusing military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

We need to look at the consequences.

• You want the "occupation to end" and the "withdrawal of all foreign" military (IDF) → paramilitary (Police) and Secutiry Forces (Shin Bet, etc).

• That creates a vacuum both attracting both the politically and criminally corupt. This vacuum, among other things, pulls-in the Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter, as the new entity that establishes "effective control."

•This is essentially what happened in the Gaza Strip. The Israel Element withdrew and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) took advantage ot the situation and, by force, took control. And HAMAS has allowed the associate groups (Palestine Islamic Jihad) as well as foreign military influences [Iranian Revolutionary Guards-Quds Force (IRCG-QF)].​

There is no true government in the world that does not maintain some sort of apparatus to maintain "effective control" in the sovereignty. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Arab League. Effective control is the aspect of a government that protects the government and the people (sometimes).

Most Respectfully,
R

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion.

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I' m not confusing a damn thing.

◈ IF I say that Jordan had "effective control" (a necessary condition for an Occupation under the Hague Regulation) over the West Bank, THEN you've consistently called that the use of "Military Force" (your "under the Gun" by a foreign power analogy). And under "effective control" you contend that the Arab Palestinians (not party to the conflict) could not freely exercise their self-determination. And THEN you play the "I'm Confused Card."​

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion. Your deduction is that the Arab Palestinian cannot execute "self-determination" if they are under "effective control."

◈ IF I say that Jordan established sovereignty over the West Bank, THEN you'll claim that the Arab Palestinians were coerced (until military governorship) into voting for the acceptance of Jordanian sovereignty. And that is not true "self-determination."​

You are still confusing military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

We need to look at the consequences.

• You want the "occupation to end" and the "withdrawal of all foreign" military (IDF) → paramilitary (Police) and Secutiry Forces (Shin Bet, etc).

• That creates a vacuum both attracting both the politically and criminally corupt. This vacuum, among other things, pulls-in the Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter, as the new entity that establishes "effective control."

•This is essentially what happened in the Gaza Strip. The Israel Element withdrew and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) took advantage ot the situation and, by force, took control. And HAMAS has allowed the associate groups (Palestine Islamic Jihad) as well as foreign military influences [Iranian Revolutionary Guards-Quds Force (IRCG-QF)].​

There is no true government in the world that does not maintain some sort of apparatus to maintain "effective control" in the sovereignty. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Arab League. Effective control is the aspect of a government that protects the government and the people (sometimes).

Most Respectfully,
R

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion.

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I' m not confusing a damn thing.

◈ IF I say that Jordan had "effective control" (a necessary condition for an Occupation under the Hague Regulation) over the West Bank, THEN you've consistently called that the use of "Military Force" (your "under the Gun" by a foreign power analogy). And under "effective control" you contend that the Arab Palestinians (not party to the conflict) could not freely exercise their self-determination. And THEN you play the "I'm Confused Card."​

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion. Your deduction is that the Arab Palestinian cannot execute "self-determination" if they are under "effective control."

◈ IF I say that Jordan established sovereignty over the West Bank, THEN you'll claim that the Arab Palestinians were coerced (until military governorship) into voting for the acceptance of Jordanian sovereignty. And that is not true "self-determination."​

You are still confusing military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

We need to look at the consequences.

• You want the "occupation to end" and the "withdrawal of all foreign" military (IDF) → paramilitary (Police) and Secutiry Forces (Shin Bet, etc).

• That creates a vacuum both attracting both the politically and criminally corupt. This vacuum, among other things, pulls-in the Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter, as the new entity that establishes "effective control."

•This is essentially what happened in the Gaza Strip. The Israel Element withdrew and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) took advantage ot the situation and, by force, took control. And HAMAS has allowed the associate groups (Palestine Islamic Jihad) as well as foreign military influences [Iranian Revolutionary Guards-Quds Force (IRCG-QF)].​

There is no true government in the world that does not maintain some sort of apparatus to maintain "effective control" in the sovereignty. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Arab League. Effective control is the aspect of a government that protects the government and the people (sometimes).

Most Respectfully,
R

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion.

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

I don't recall sovereignty being mentioned at all.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are getting caught-up in the semantic-tanglefoot (barrier intended to impede the progress of an opponent). IT is a neat trick and you have mastered it well.

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coercion.

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

(COMMENT)

Lost in the tanglefoot is the meaning: The meaning being, whatever else it was called, it certainly was the case that the Arab Palestinians had NO power to influence the course of events; if you take away their voice and their Right to Self-Determination at the Parliamentary level.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.
No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is certainly true for the last 1000 years.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are getting caught-up in the semantic-tanglefoot (barrier intended to impede the progress of an opponent). IT is a neat trick and you have mastered it well.

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coercion.

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

(COMMENT)

Lost in the tanglefoot is the meaning: The meaning being, whatever else it was called, it certainly was the case that the Arab Palestinians had NO power to influence the course of events; if you take away their voice and their Right to Self-Determination at the Parliamentary level.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.
No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is certainly true for the last 1000 years.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty was in the hands of the citizens. The citizens were the people who had Ottoman/Turkish citizenship with provisions for immigrants to obtain citizenship. The immigrants would share sovereignty with the existing citizens. There was no special sovereignty for any one class of citizens.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, come on now.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

I don't recall sovereignty being mentioned at all.

(COMMENT)

I don't recall anything under the Mandate for Palestine, being granted Sovereignty until 1946 (Jordan).

The reason "sovereignty" is not mentioned is because no Princial Allied Power wants to make the mistake of granting sovereignty without first, establishing self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty was in the hands of the citizens. The citizens were the people who had Ottoman/Turkish citizenship with provisions for immigrants to obtain citizenship. The immigrants would share sovereignty with the existing citizens. There was no special sovereignty for any one class of citizens.

(COMMENT)

Oh, this is wrong on so many levels, I just can't count them.

For a millennium, what we call today the MENA (Middle East - North Africa) had no nation of people → in which the Sovereignty was in the hands of the citizens. That is a 19th and 20th Century notion. It is by no means universally accepted. The "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq) were temporarily and conditionally ("provisionally recognized") considered as pre-independent states. The "provisional recognition) is NOT the same thing as being sovereign. The Mandatory, in its administration, held sovereignty in abeyance until such time as the Mandatory determined the territory could stand alone; or if some other accommodations needed to be made.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty was in the hands of the citizens. The citizens were the people who had Ottoman/Turkish citizenship with provisions for immigrants to obtain citizenship. The immigrants would share sovereignty with the existing citizens. There was no special sovereignty for any one class of citizens.

(COMMENT)

Oh, this is wrong on so many levels, I just can't count them.

For a millennium, what we call today the MENA (Middle East - North Africa) had no nation of people → in which the Sovereignty was in the hands of the citizens. That is a 19th and 20th Century notion. It is by no means universally accepted. The "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq) were temporarily and conditionally ("provisionally recognized") considered as pre-independent states. The "provisional recognition) is NOT the same thing as being sovereign. The Mandatory, in its administration, held sovereignty in abeyance until such time as the Mandatory determined the territory could stand alone; or if some other accommodations needed to be made.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandatory, in its administration, held sovereignty in abeyance until such time as the Mandatory determined the territory could stand alone; or if some other accommodations needed to be made.

It was still a shared sovereignty without distinction. Why do you think Britain was there for thirty years without creating a democratic government. That should not have taken more than ten years or so and they did not need the military to do it.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I' m not confusing a damn thing.

◈ IF I say that Jordan had "effective control" (a necessary condition for an Occupation under the Hague Regulation) over the West Bank, THEN you've consistently called that the use of "Military Force" (your "under the Gun" by a foreign power analogy). And under "effective control" you contend that the Arab Palestinians (not party to the conflict) could not freely exercise their self-determination. And THEN you play the "I'm Confused Card."​

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion. Your deduction is that the Arab Palestinian cannot execute "self-determination" if they are under "effective control."

◈ IF I say that Jordan established sovereignty over the West Bank, THEN you'll claim that the Arab Palestinians were coerced (until military governorship) into voting for the acceptance of Jordanian sovereignty. And that is not true "self-determination."​

(COMMENT)

We need to look at the consequences.

• You want the "occupation to end" and the "withdrawal of all foreign" military (IDF) → paramilitary (Police) and Secutiry Forces (Shin Bet, etc).

• That creates a vacuum both attracting both the politically and criminally corupt. This vacuum, among other things, pulls-in the Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter, as the new entity that establishes "effective control."

•This is essentially what happened in the Gaza Strip. The Israel Element withdrew and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) took advantage ot the situation and, by force, took control. And HAMAS has allowed the associate groups (Palestine Islamic Jihad) as well as foreign military influences [Iranian Revolutionary Guards-Quds Force (IRCG-QF)].​

There is no true government in the world that does not maintain some sort of apparatus to maintain "effective control" in the sovereignty. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Arab League. Effective control is the aspect of a government that protects the government and the people (sometimes).

Most Respectfully,
R

You equate "effective control" as exclusive meaning "occupation." That would be incorrect. And you equate 'effective control" with military coersion.

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

I don't recall sovereignty being mentioned at all.

Actually it does, when talking about re-constitution of the Jewish homeland,
and development of self government.

Furthermore the US is obliged by its own Constitution to the obligations of that document,
and no Arab nation or sovereignty is mentioned anywhere in it.

 

[Shusha]

You need to read the Mandate.

Oh! That's the funniest thing I've read in months here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Military control of your own territory is sovereignty. Military control of territory that is no yours is occupation.

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

I don't recall sovereignty being mentioned at all.

Actually it does, when talking about re-constitution of the Jewish homeland,
and development of self government.

Furthermore the US is obliged by its own Constitution to the obligations of that document,
and no Arab nation or sovereignty is mentioned anywhere in it.

Palestine was the nation. The Jewish national home was that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship.

 

[Shusha]

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

I don't recall sovereignty being mentioned at all.

Actually it does, when talking about re-constitution of the Jewish homeland,
and development of self government.

Furthermore the US is obliged by its own Constitution to the obligations of that document,
and no Arab nation or sovereignty is mentioned anywhere in it.

Palestine was the nation. The Jewish national home was that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship.

Yeah. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Why? Because no matter which peoples (Jewish Palestinians or Arab Palestinians) theoretically held the territory and had rights to sovereignty over it in 1922, 1924, 1947, etc..* the reality developed over the next decades that there are two peoples each of whom want sovereignty and self-determination.

The STANDARD in the world in that case is partion so that each people can realize self-determination. Not only is that the standard, but it the only effective method of bringing peace.

So why can't we just get ON with it?






(*it was the Jewish people, btw)

 

[rylah]

There's no part of Palestine, that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation by international law.

No Arab nation had ever any sovereignty in that territory, and all potential source of any other sovereignty in that territory is solely a function of an agreement from the Jewish nation.

You need to read the Mandate.

Will I find any mention of an Arab nation as sovereign?
Let's see You quote it.

I don't recall sovereignty being mentioned at all.

Actually it does, when talking about re-constitution of the Jewish homeland,
and development of self government.

Furthermore the US is obliged by its own Constitution to the obligations of that document,
and no Arab nation or sovereignty is mentioned anywhere in it.

Palestine was the nation. The Jewish national home was that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship.

That Palestine too, was legally defined from day one, as the re-constitution of the Jewish nation, and no other beneficiary was mentioned.

Jewish political and national rights in that territory are recognized by international law, non-Jews have civil rights as a function of citizenship in that re-constituted Jewish national home, not the same as political rights or sovereignty.

Read the mandate.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Security sources on Monday afternoon reported "unusual activity" by the Islamic Jihad terror group near the Gaza-Israel border fence.

In light of the reported upcoming ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, it may be that the Islamic Jihad is working to sabotage the agreement by carrying out attacks near the border.

(full article online)

Islamic Jihad planning a terror attack

 

[Hollie]

Three Arabs-Moslems killed at the border gee-had was a good number for Hamas. Greater numbers of Arabs-Moslems killed might have been a difficult position for them to justify. A few dead will be hand-waved off as just the cost of doing gee-had business.

40,000 rioted on Gaza border in protests controlled by Hamas - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

40,000 rioted on Gaza border in protests controlled by Hamas
By Marcy Oster March 31, 2019 10:00 am

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Three Palestinian teens were reported killed during violent protests at the Gaza border by some 40,000 protesters marking the one-year anniversary of the Great March of Return, as Israeli military leaders praised Hamas for actively working to control the demonstrations.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Palestine was the nation. The Jewish national home was that the Jews could get Palestinian citizenship. The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

Palestine was NOT a nation/state until 2012. In December 2012 the UN Decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The Jewish National Home was a political construct within the State of Israel. The State of Israel was a recommendation by the UN, accepted and formed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Palestine Today has a heartwarming story (for Palestinians) about a mother who brought her daughter to Palestinian Land Day protests, exposing the toddler to danger.

When she was born, her mom named her after Reem Saleh Riyashi, a terrorist who killed 4 Israelis at the Erez crossing in 2004.

Riyashi left behind two small children of her own and a Hamas commander husband. She apparently decided to blow herself up because she was having an affair with another Hamas commander, and the news about the affair was starting to get out. Her lover convinced her to blow herself up and become a heroine rather than be exposed to the shame of being an adulteress.

Here's the role model for today's Palestinians:

(full article online)

Gaza mother names baby after terrorist, brings her to "protests" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Billo_Really]

When you may choose the worst report on Gaza without giving any accountability to Hamas' actions......
Trucks loaded with food enter Gaza on a daily basis. The question would be WHY doesn't that food reach those "million Palestinians" who do not have enough to feed their families? Where do the trucks and the food end up?
Hint: Hamas would know

Don't change the subject. The number of trucks going into Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas.

The number of trucks carrying food into the Gaza Strip last week was the lowest it’s reached in several months. According to Defense Ministry figures, in the 24 hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the closure of the Kerem Shalom crossing to goods, 193 trucks entered the Strip, 171 of those carrying food, medicine and hygiene products.
​

A population that size needs at least 1200 trucks a day.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is a huge difference between terrorizing people and wanting to scare them to get something which does not belong to you, as the Arabs have done since 1920, and what the Jews had to do to protect, defend themselves and eventually declare Independence which is something the Arabs insisted that the Jews should not have ON their OWN ancient homeland.

Zionists declared independence over 70% of the land when they were only 10% of the population in 1948.

Defending one's territory against those who do not want you to have the freedom to have a country is very different from what the Arabs continue to do and VOW they will continue to do until Israel is destroyed.

You are not defending when you are the occupier.

ALL of the Mandate for Palestine was to become the Jewish State.
78% was given away to the Hashemites. No terrorism against the Hashemites from the Jews

With the caveat you cannot infringe upon the inalienable rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

From 1920 to 1948, Arab terrorism against Jews to keep them from creating a Country. You like to revert the whole thing.

You drove out 750,000 of them through the use of Zionist terrorism.

From 1948 to 1973, several Arab countries attacking Israel to destroy it. You revert the whole thing.

Other than '73, Israel started every war it was in.

From 1973 till today, continued attacks by the Arabs, to scare, kill, destroy Israel with rockets, with BDS, with anything they can come up with.

End the occupation and you will end the rocket attacks.

God bless the BDS!

Why? Because according to many Muslims, once Islam conquers a land , it belongs to Islam forever. Some Muslims cannot allow Jews to have a State. Hamas is such one group of Muslims.
But you revert the whole thing.

You just keep pushing that big lie like there is no tomorrow. You're full of shit. You're a fuckin' liar.

What part of the Mandate do you believe the Jews have a right to?
How long, how wide, for how long?

The Mandate ended. Zionists declared independence the day after. You acted like a street gang after finding out the cops left the area and would not be coming back.

 

[Billo_Really]

In which universe? Definitely not this one.

You cannot acquire land by force.