Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Shusha]

So. Going back to the point of the thread. Since there is NO boundary which divides the territory -- how is it possible to say WHERE Israelis are permitted to live and where Palestinians are permitted to live, thus determining which residents are "illegal" and which are not?

Further, why are "settlements" in places where there ARE boundaries -- like Azerbaijan, Western Sahara, Cyprus, Crimea -- not treated with the same level of world-wide condemnation?

So. Going back to the point of the thread. Since there is NO boundary which divides the territory

Correction. There is no boundary which divides Palestine.

Sure. There is no boundary which divides the place that used to be called Palestine, and is now called the State of Israel. (You know, just like the other part of the place that used to be called Palestine is now called the Hashemite Kindgom of Jordan.)

You keep harping on place names as though the act of naming a place creates a State. It's ridiculous.

 

[Shusha]

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

There are all sorts of ways to change or establish or confirm borders.

Mutual agreement is the most common one. (See the Peace Treaties and the Interim Agreement Rocco posted above).

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The criteria for any of the four Armistice Arrangements have all been superseded in one way or another.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions as surveyed in March 1949 by United Nations observers, and shall run from north to south as delineated on map 1 in annex I to this Agreement.

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

Note that there are no borders for Israel mentioned anywhere in these agreements

Palestine is mentioned many times but a place called Israel is not mentioned at all.

Also note that these agreements took place after the end of the Mandate, after resolution 181, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

There are essentially six (6) criteria that have been established and are important on the topic; An interim agreement on an easement, two Knesset enacted laws, two Treaties and a Letter of Understanding on Israel’s withdrawal to the international boundaries. They are:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
◈ Golan Heights Law •

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •
◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now. No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events. We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).


Most Respectfully,
R

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

What borders of what country were changed?

Link?


Could you be suggesting that the imaginary borders of your Magical Kngdom of Pally'land (magically invented by the Treaty of Lausanne), were changed?

Link?


Wasn't there a government of the Magical Kingdom that would have objected?

Link?

And this fantastic treaty that created the independent State of Palestine in 1924 doesn't even mention Palestine at all. Of course, this delusional State only existed in Tinmore's mind.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The criteria for any of the four Armistice Arrangements have all been superseded in one way or another.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions as surveyed in March 1949 by United Nations observers, and shall run from north to south as delineated on map 1 in annex I to this Agreement.

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

Note that there are no borders for Israel mentioned anywhere in these agreements

Palestine is mentioned many times but a place called Israel is not mentioned at all.

Also note that these agreements took place after the end of the Mandate, after resolution 181, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

There are essentially six (6) criteria that have been established and are important on the topic; An interim agreement on an easement, two Knesset enacted laws, two Treaties and a Letter of Understanding on Israel’s withdrawal to the international boundaries. They are:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
◈ Golan Heights Law •

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •
◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now. No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events. We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).


Most Respectfully,
R

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

What borders of what country were changed?

Link?


Could you be suggesting that the imaginary borders of your Magical Kngdom of Pally'land (magically invented by the Treaty of Lausanne), were changed?

Link?


Wasn't there a government of the Magical Kingdom that would have objected?

Link?

And this fantastic treaty that created the independent State of Palestine in 1924 doesn't even mention Palestine at all. Of course, this delusional State only existed in Tinmore's mind.

Funny how in Tinmore's mind, treaties which don't mention* Israel "prove" Israel doesn't exist. But treaties which don't mention Palestine somehow create countries called Palestine. Weird.


*don't mention Israel except as a Party to the agreement

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties.

Nice deflection.
And in agreements with which nation did those sovereign states reference Palestine borders?

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute Palestine's borders.

Exactly the weakness of your whole narrative.
And with which nation do they sign international agreements featuring these borders?

Tin has to be mentally ill.

He's certainly more interested in Israel than his own alleged country, or anything else.
The guy has been posting fanatically Jihadi propaganda on a daily basis for the last 10 years.

What kind of dog does he have in this fight? I've never been able to figure that out.

 

[Hollie]

All of P F Tinmore's false claims and false assertions have been addressed in the thread at the top of the I&P forum.

He seems to have an unhealthy habit of making the same outrageous claims in every thread and then watching with shocked surprise as his attempt at argument comes crashing to the ground in flames.

 

[Indeependent]

Nice deflection.
And in agreements with which nation did those sovereign states reference Palestine borders?

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute Palestine's borders.

Exactly the weakness of your whole narrative.
And with which nation do they sign international agreements featuring these borders?

Tin has to be mentally ill.

He's certainly more interested in Israel than his own alleged country, or anything else.
The guy has been posting fanatically Jihadi propaganda on a daily basis for the last 10 years.

What kind of dog does he have in this fight? I've never been able to figure that out.

I understand he is a Christian fundamentalist.
He can’t handle facts.

 

[Shusha]

Nearly 40 pages into this thread....and do we have a compelling argument for why Israeli "settlements" are illegal when no one else's are?

Nope. I don't think we do.

 

[rylah]

Nice deflection.
And in agreements with which nation did those sovereign states reference Palestine borders?

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute Palestine's borders.

Exactly the weakness of your whole narrative.
And with which nation do they sign international agreements featuring these borders?

Tin has to be mentally ill.

He's certainly more interested in Israel than his own alleged country, or anything else.
The guy has been posting fanatically Jihadi propaganda on a daily basis for the last 10 years.

What kind of dog does he have in this fight? I've never been able to figure that out.

I think this thread reveals exactly that.
If it isn't Jews in Israel he certainty doesn't give a chicken leg...

Take it as it is, he knows which side he's on,
believe your enemies.

 

[Indeependent]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute Palestine's borders.

Exactly the weakness of your whole narrative.
And with which nation do they sign international agreements featuring these borders?

Tin has to be mentally ill.

He's certainly more interested in Israel than his own alleged country, or anything else.
The guy has been posting fanatically Jihadi propaganda on a daily basis for the last 10 years.

What kind of dog does he have in this fight? I've never been able to figure that out.

I think this thread reveals exactly that.
Ifs't the Jews in Judea he certainty doesn't give a chicken leg...

Take it as it is, believe your enemies.

Tin...
Wash, Rinse, Repeat, etc...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Y'all must have your undies in a bunch.

 

[toastman]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The criteria for any of the four Armistice Arrangements have all been superseded in one way or another.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions as surveyed in March 1949 by United Nations observers, and shall run from north to south as delineated on map 1 in annex I to this Agreement.

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

Note that there are no borders for Israel mentioned anywhere in these agreements

Palestine is mentioned many times but a place called Israel is not mentioned at all.

Also note that these agreements took place after the end of the Mandate, after resolution 181, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

There are essentially six (6) criteria that have been established and are important on the topic; An interim agreement on an easement, two Knesset enacted laws, two Treaties and a Letter of Understanding on Israel’s withdrawal to the international boundaries. They are:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
◈ Golan Heights Law •

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •
◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now. No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events. We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).


Most Respectfully,
R

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

Palestine was a country ? Link ?

I suspect you will not respond to this post because you know you are wrong . I have honestly never seen someone so uneducated as you Tinmore.

 

[toastman]

Tinmore , I am calling you out. We have asked you over and over and over to provide links for your outrageous claims .
So what are you waiting for ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore , I am calling you out. We have asked you over and over and over to provide links for your outrageous claims .
So what are you waiting for ?

Which claims?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The criteria for any of the four Armistice Arrangements have all been superseded in one way or another.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions as surveyed in March 1949 by United Nations observers, and shall run from north to south as delineated on map 1 in annex I to this Agreement.

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

Note that there are no borders for Israel mentioned anywhere in these agreements

Palestine is mentioned many times but a place called Israel is not mentioned at all.

Also note that these agreements took place after the end of the Mandate, after resolution 181, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

There are essentially six (6) criteria that have been established and are important on the topic; An interim agreement on an easement, two Knesset enacted laws, two Treaties and a Letter of Understanding on Israel’s withdrawal to the international boundaries. They are:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
◈ Golan Heights Law •

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •
◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now. No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events. We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).


Most Respectfully,
R

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

Palestine was a country ? Link ?

I suspect you will not respond to this post because you know you are wrong . I have honestly never seen someone so uneducated as you Tinmore.

You really don't want to know.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your question is about "sovereign authority." That does one sovereign authority exercise sovereign authority over another territory (or new territory) in order to make changes:

• Section 2: Acquisition of Territory •
• Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law •

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).​

(2) Prescription

A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

As the requirement of adequate length of time for possession is concerned, there is no consensus on this regard. Thus, the adequacy of the length of period would be decided on a case by case basis. All the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the territory and the absence or presence of any competing claims will be taken into consideration.​

(3) Accretion

(4) Cession

(5) Conquest and Annexation

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation.[31] The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.​

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

(COMMENT)


• Disengagement from the West Bank • Quote Jordan - History - Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature.

On July 31, 1988 (before the PLO Declared Independence) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

The decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. During the same period, mounting economic difficulties led to a spate of rioting in certain parts of the Kingdom. Circumstances had therefore coalesced to produce a situation favoring the resumption of the democratic process King Hussein had initiated early in his reign. In November 1989, general parliamentary elections were held in Jordan for the first time since 1966, ushering in a new era for the institutionalization of Jordan’s democratic experience.​

In practice, the "disengagement" left the West Bank and Jerusalem in the hands of the only "Effective Authority" over the area (Israel).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your question is about "sovereign authority." That does one sovereign authority exercise sovereign authority over another territory (or new territory) in order to make changes:

• Section 2: Acquisition of Territory •
• Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law •

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).​

(2) Prescription

A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

As the requirement of adequate length of time for possession is concerned, there is no consensus on this regard. Thus, the adequacy of the length of period would be decided on a case by case basis. All the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the territory and the absence or presence of any competing claims will be taken into consideration.​

(3) Accretion

(4) Cession

(5) Conquest and Annexation

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation.[31] The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.​

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

(COMMENT)


• Disengagement from the West Bank • Quote Jordan - History - Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature.

On July 31, 1988 (before the PLO Declared Independence) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

The decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. During the same period, mounting economic difficulties led to a spate of rioting in certain parts of the Kingdom. Circumstances had therefore coalesced to produce a situation favoring the resumption of the democratic process King Hussein had initiated early in his reign. In November 1989, general parliamentary elections were held in Jordan for the first time since 1966, ushering in a new era for the institutionalization of Jordan’s democratic experience.​

In practice, the "disengagement" left the West Bank and Jerusalem in the hands of the only "Effective Authority" over the area (Israel).


Most Respectfully,
R

You have posted this data dump before but never mentioned which process Israel used.

BTW, the West Bank was never Jordan's territory.

 

[toastman]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your question is about "sovereign authority." That does one sovereign authority exercise sovereign authority over another territory (or new territory) in order to make changes:

• Section 2: Acquisition of Territory •
• Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law •

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).​

(2) Prescription

A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

As the requirement of adequate length of time for possession is concerned, there is no consensus on this regard. Thus, the adequacy of the length of period would be decided on a case by case basis. All the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the territory and the absence or presence of any competing claims will be taken into consideration.​

(3) Accretion

(4) Cession

(5) Conquest and Annexation

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation.[31] The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.​

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

(COMMENT)


• Disengagement from the West Bank • Quote Jordan - History - Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature.

On July 31, 1988 (before the PLO Declared Independence) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

The decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. During the same period, mounting economic difficulties led to a spate of rioting in certain parts of the Kingdom. Circumstances had therefore coalesced to produce a situation favoring the resumption of the democratic process King Hussein had initiated early in his reign. In November 1989, general parliamentary elections were held in Jordan for the first time since 1966, ushering in a new era for the institutionalization of Jordan’s democratic experience.​

In practice, the "disengagement" left the West Bank and Jerusalem in the hands of the only "Effective Authority" over the area (Israel).


Most Respectfully,
R

You have posted this data dump before but never mentioned which process Israel used.

BTW, the West Bank was never Jordan's territory.

Rocco provides links and backs up all his claims.. You got nothing, as usual..

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no restriction on the number of criteria that may be applicable in the process. As you may have noticed, I annotated more than one.

You have posted this data dump before but never mentioned which process Israel used.

BTW, the West Bank was never Jordan's territory.

Rocco provides links and backs up all his claims.. You got nothing, as usual..

(COMMENT)

These were annotated and these all played a part in the development of the situation today.

(1) Occupation
(2) Prescription
(5) Conquest and Annexation​

The Occupation is obvious and vocally recognized by the Arab Palestinians every single day.

Prescription is exemplified by Israel in that is has established de facto power and authority to extend governmental responsibility for the disputed territory since before the Jordanian Government abandon it in 1988. When the Jordanians abandon the territories, they withdrew knowing that there was no other government to fill the void other than the Israelis.

The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state (Jordanian Disengagement), whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on as territory (West Bank and Jerusalem) without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory’. [See Pg 596 (Terra Nullius) ‘Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law’ (Parry & Grant)]

Annexation is what it is. Whether or not any particular state says that it does (or does not) recognizes any give annexation is immaterial to its actual application. IF you say that "the West Bank was never Jordan's territory" THEN you are saying that the Arab Palestinians (between 1950 and 1988) were not able to use Jordanian Documents (Passports and Identity Papers) as a medium to travel.

Ask your friends if they have a Jordanian Passport. IF they do, THEN look to see If it has any stamps inside. That will tell you if the West Bank was recognized as Jordan. It is called Tacit recognition.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

You have posted this data dump before but never mentioned which process Israel used.

This is a valid question.

The legalese answer, imo, is cession. The territory was abandoned by the former sovereign and given over to an outside authority to determine its final status. That determination was for the creation of a new sovereign representing the indigenous Jewish people.

A new legal concept was developing at the time of these events -- that of self-determination of peoples. This new legal concept asserts that the peoples have their own authority and do not have to rely on an existing sovereign entity.

The conflict is a direct fall-out of this new developing legal concept, which has been largely accepted by the international community, but has somehow stalled with I/P.