Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[RoccoR]

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

Again, you can remain in denial, pretend that the Israelis didn't have the Independence, and did not have what the UN Blue Book" said: "establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan."

////////////////////
I don't see anything on that map of Palestine marked off as Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

But we've come much farther along. Today, certainly ---- the question is a matter of reasonability.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Is the UN the arbiter as to who is and who is not a state?

Link?

The UN does not decide who is or who is not a state, however, participation in the UN is very good evidence of the capacity to enter into relations with other states, which is one of the defining attributes of a state, and usually the last to settle into place.

 

[Hollie]

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

I can't believe it.

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Where does it say who were the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

“party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(OBSERVATION)

Prior to 1974, the no legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was considered as a party to any international agreement concluded between States.

◈ Why, because it was not until 1974 when the independent national authority for the Arab Palestinians was recognized by the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference 28 October 74.

◈ Why, because it was not until November 1988, when The Palestine National Council declared, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

Since the Arab Palestinians did NOT have a "State" in 1974 or even 1988, it did not possess the capacity to conclude treaties. It is not even sure today, that the Arab Palestinians can claim that it can adhere to any of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

View attachment 260820
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

Is the UN the arbiter as to who is and who is not a state?

Link?

Why are the "Pal'istanians" appealing to the UN for statehood? Can the UN wave a magic gavel and declare a "state of Pal'istan"?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Again, you can remain in denial, pretend that the Israelis didn't have the Independence, and did not have what the UN Blue Book" said: "establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan."

////////////////////
I don't see anything on that map of Palestine marked off as Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

But we've come much farther along. Today, certainly ---- the question is a matter of reasonability.

Most Respectfully,
R

"establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan."

There was no partition plan.

 

[Hollie]

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

Again, you can remain in denial, pretend that the Israelis didn't have the Independence, and did not have what the UN Blue Book" said: "establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan."

////////////////////
I don't see anything on that map of Palestine marked off as Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

But we've come much farther along. Today, certainly ---- the question is a matter of reasonability.

Most Respectfully,
R

"establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan."

There was no partition plan.

There's another of Tinmore's conspiracy theories about to dumped into the thread,

 

[RoccoR]

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

For the Love of the Lords of Kobol.

"establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan."

There was no partition plan.

(COMMENT)

There was a Partition Plan... You can read all about it.

Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and end of the British Mandate • The Question of Palestine before the United Nations. . . . . .Page 7​

It really doesn't matter if YOU don't believe, or have some alternative history (Drunk History) YOU can lean on. The reality is (less pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian Misinformation, Misinterpretation, and other mutilations to the truth) what it is.

When the UN made ready for the British Withdraw and the end of the Mandate, the UN Special Committee for Palestine presented two recommendations. It was the General Assembly that adopted Resolution 181 (II). The Jewish accepted and the Arabs rejected. So, the Jewish went forward with the Steps Preparatory to Independence and • as has happened so many time prior to • the Arabs avoided the invitation to join in the productive advancement of self-governing institutions.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians have implemented a total disregard for the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation with Israel. They believe that if they can interfere with the implementation with the progressive programs, they can make the claim that UN A/RES/181 (II) "never happened." Again, it should be noted that in the PLO Declaration of Independence (1988):

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

Noting, again, that it mentions A/RES/181 (II)... It should be noted that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine.

And the Hostile Arab Palestinians → in different ways → made the following points:

◈ The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.
◈ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

For the Love of the Lords of Kobol.

Bwahahahaha!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine was occupied enemy territory until 1924 when it became a non enemy state with no military. Different set of rules under international law.

Its like you think the whole Mandate never happened. And that the disposition of territories abandoned by Turkey in 1924 was just a figment of everyone's imagination. And then you make up a whole new reality to suit yourself. But only concerning Israel, of course.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

 

[Hollie]

Palestine was occupied enemy territory until 1924 when it became a non enemy state with no military. Different set of rules under international law.

Its like you think the whole Mandate never happened. And that the disposition of territories abandoned by Turkey in 1924 was just a figment of everyone's imagination. And then you make up a whole new reality to suit yourself. But only concerning Israel, of course.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

Actually, the “rights” you demand for Arabs-Moslems are the rights you deny the Jewish people.

You want excuses for why the Arabs-Moslems are unable to form a workable society and so you retreat to classic Arab-Moslem complaints that your failures are the fault of The Zionist Entity

 

[Hollie]

Palestine was occupied enemy territory until 1924 when it became a non enemy state with no military. Different set of rules under international law.

Its like you think the whole Mandate never happened. And that the disposition of territories abandoned by Turkey in 1924 was just a figment of everyone's imagination. And then you make up a whole new reality to suit yourself. But only concerning Israel, of course.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

There was no Mandate.

 

[Ropey]

Sorry about the Golan, terrorists...

Not sorry.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Close! But no "Kewpie Doll." You make this mistake quite often.

First, let's remember: The Arab Palestinians are what we call a "third party" or "third state" (means a State not a party to the treaty • Article 2(1h) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

As we know, the Arab Palestinians are not a party to either the Treaty of Lausanne or anything prior to at least 1988. THUS:

A third State (third party) is not entitled to contest the validity of a legal act that other entities had the power to perform under international law. This is true even if it was not a party to the legal transaction. Thus, if the competent UN body decided to withdraw a mandate which had been granted under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, it thereby exercises its proper functions and the legal situation created on the ground has consequently to be accepted by third States (except if they claim that the UN organ overstepped its competence). The same is true for territorial and boundary issues. A treaty setting up a boundary or
deciding on the ownership of some part of the territory is res inter alios acta (done between strangers ought not to affect a third person) for the third State.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless, these rights cannot be violated.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between Article 16 (found within Part I → Political • Section I → Territorial Clauses) and Article 30 (found within Part I → Political • Section II → Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne (1924).

You cannot use Article 30 authority on territorial issues and sovereignty. AND! You cannot use Article 16 authority to explain nationality issues and citizenship.

One has to do with the territory specified (binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory), where as the nationality clause has to do with the prevention, to the extent possible, the creation of persons not considered a national by any other country (stateless).

Nationality Clauses deals with the handling of people issues • NOT territory. Whereas Territorial Clauses deal with matters of sovereignty, boundaries, issues of acquisition and transfer of authority over a territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

What was "occupied", when Jordan was occupying it? What was it called?


It's so simple, even a child could understand it:

Let’s break it down. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict may be difficult to solve but if you know the history, it’s rather simple to understand. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state and live in peace.


Palestinians want them dead.

There’s NO “Israeli Occupation” In The West Bank

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Close! But no "Kewpie Doll." You make this mistake quite often.

First, let's remember: The Arab Palestinians are what we call a "third party" or "third state" (means a State not a party to the treaty • Article 2(1h) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

As we know, the Arab Palestinians are not a party to either the Treaty of Lausanne or anything prior to at least 1988. THUS:

A third State (third party) is not entitled to contest the validity of a legal act that other entities had the power to perform under international law. This is true even if it was not a party to the legal transaction. Thus, if the competent UN body decided to withdraw a mandate which had been granted under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, it thereby exercises its proper functions and the legal situation created on the ground has consequently to be accepted by third States (except if they claim that the UN organ overstepped its competence). The same is true for territorial and boundary issues. A treaty setting up a boundary or
deciding on the ownership of some part of the territory is res inter alios acta (done between strangers ought not to affect a third person) for the third State.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless, these rights cannot be violated.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between Article 16 (found within Part I → Political • Section I → Territorial Clauses) and Article 30 (found within Part I → Political • Section II → Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne (1924).

You cannot use Article 30 authority on territorial issues and sovereignty. AND! You cannot use Article 16 authority to explain nationality issues and citizenship.

One has to do with the territory specified (binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory), where as the nationality clause has to do with the prevention, to the extent possible, the creation of persons not considered a national by any other country (stateless).

Nationality Clauses deals with the handling of people issues • NOT territory. Whereas Territorial Clauses deal with matters of sovereignty, boundaries, issues of acquisition and transfer of authority over a territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

British/Zionist colonialism violates virtually all of the protections afforded the Palestinians under international law.

 

[Mindful]

I'm so flattered you read my posts, Herr Tinmore.

 

[Likkmee]

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

Close! But no "Kewpie Doll." You make this mistake quite often.

First, let's remember: The Arab Palestinians are what we call a "third party" or "third state" (means a State not a party to the treaty • Article 2(1h) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

As we know, the Arab Palestinians are not a party to either the Treaty of Lausanne or anything prior to at least 1988. THUS:

A third State (third party) is not entitled to contest the validity of a legal act that other entities had the power to perform under international law. This is true even if it was not a party to the legal transaction. Thus, if the competent UN body decided to withdraw a mandate which had been granted under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, it thereby exercises its proper functions and the legal situation created on the ground has consequently to be accepted by third States (except if they claim that the UN organ overstepped its competence). The same is true for territorial and boundary issues. A treaty setting up a boundary or
deciding on the ownership of some part of the territory is res inter alios acta (done between strangers ought not to affect a third person) for the third State.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless, these rights cannot be violated.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between Article 16 (found within Part I → Political • Section I → Territorial Clauses) and Article 30 (found within Part I → Political • Section II → Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne (1924).

You cannot use Article 30 authority on territorial issues and sovereignty. AND! You cannot use Article 16 authority to explain nationality issues and citizenship.

One has to do with the territory specified (binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory), where as the nationality clause has to do with the prevention, to the extent possible, the creation of persons not considered a national by any other country (stateless).

Nationality Clauses deals with the handling of people issues • NOT territory. Whereas Territorial Clauses deal with matters of sovereignty, boundaries, issues of acquisition and transfer of authority over a territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

British/Zionist colonialism violates virtually all of the protections afforded the Palestinians under international law.

OH. OK

 

[Mindful]

The PCBS report revealed that the population of Palestine in 1914 was 690,000. Only 8% of the population were Jewish. Meanwhile, in 1948 the population of Palestine reached over 2 million, 31.5% of them were Jewish. This dramatic increase in the numbers of Jewish people are attributed to mass migrations, supported by the British mandate.

Although of the ethnic cleansing and genocides against Palestinians, the total number of them has reached around 13.1 million in the end of 2018, which means that the number of Palestinians has multiplied ninefold since 1948. 6.48 million Palestinians live in the historical Palestine.

I should point out that these figures are extremely inflated, since:

• It is clearly counting more than 5 million “palestinian refugees” as calculated by UNRWA’s already grossly inflated number, which includes those who lived in “Palestine” a minimum of only two years preceding 1948, as well as descendants of these “refugees” (including adopted children). In actual fact, there were 600,000-700,000 palestinian refugees from the War of Independence
• They include Arab Israelis, way more of whom identify as Israeli than as “palestinian”

The Arab population in the palestinian-controlled territories and Israel may be closer to 6.5 million. And even that number is arguably inflated. Whatever the actual number, what is clear is that’s one hell of a genocide and ethnic cleansing fail.




Thank you Quds News Network for reminding us all about it – despite your lies!

Palestinian Propaganda Site: Our Population Has Increased Ninefold Since Nakba. Damn Ethnic Cleansing & Genocide!

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

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

Close! But no "Kewpie Doll." You make this mistake quite often.

First, let's remember: The Arab Palestinians are what we call a "third party" or "third state" (means a State not a party to the treaty • Article 2(1h) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

As we know, the Arab Palestinians are not a party to either the Treaty of Lausanne or anything prior to at least 1988. THUS:

A third State (third party) is not entitled to contest the validity of a legal act that other entities had the power to perform under international law. This is true even if it was not a party to the legal transaction. Thus, if the competent UN body decided to withdraw a mandate which had been granted under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, it thereby exercises its proper functions and the legal situation created on the ground has consequently to be accepted by third States (except if they claim that the UN organ overstepped its competence). The same is true for territorial and boundary issues. A treaty setting up a boundary or
deciding on the ownership of some part of the territory is res inter alios acta (done between strangers ought not to affect a third person) for the third State.

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

The land was ceded to Palestine and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

The UN has confirmed that the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless, these rights cannot be violated.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between Article 16 (found within Part I → Political • Section I → Territorial Clauses) and Article 30 (found within Part I → Political • Section II → Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne (1924).

You cannot use Article 30 authority on territorial issues and sovereignty. AND! You cannot use Article 16 authority to explain nationality issues and citizenship.

One has to do with the territory specified (binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory), where as the nationality clause has to do with the prevention, to the extent possible, the creation of persons not considered a national by any other country (stateless).

Nationality Clauses deals with the handling of people issues • NOT territory. Whereas Territorial Clauses deal with matters of sovereignty, boundaries, issues of acquisition and transfer of authority over a territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

British/Zionist colonialism violates virtually all of the protections afforded the Palestinians under international law.

The brief from the legal team of PF Tinmore, Inc. includes references to long established principles of “.... because I say so”.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?