Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[Shusha]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.

Well, then, feel free to elaborate, as you failed to do in your original post.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.

Israel never had a defined territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

 

[Hollie]

There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.

Well, then, feel free to elaborate, as you failed to do in your original post.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.

Israel never had a defined territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

That's the same pointless drivel that has been addressed on multiple occasions.

How many more times will you post the same irrelevancy?

 

[Hollie]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?

 

[P F Tinmore]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?

I am just referring to the legitimate Palestinians citizens.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well there are answers to all of this issues.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.
Israel never had a defined territory.

(ANSWER)

Independence was through the declarative theory of sovereignty. The original delcaration was based on the UN Recommendation which Israel followed. But it was short lived, because of the external interference and act of aggression on the part of the entire Arab League (5 National Armies), when the smoke cleared and the Armistice Lines where drawn, the State of Israel established sovereignty over the additional territory. Israel has been enforcing that very same border as (defined) sovereign territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

(ANSWER)

The will of the Jewish People, through the voice of the Jewish Aagency, established the Provisional Government and successfully defended it against the Arab League (more than once).

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(ANSWER)

The Jewish State of Israel established the nation under the rule of law, in the shadow of a Jewish-Arab Civil War, and then against Hostile Arab Palestinians. There was no refugee movements after the succession of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Lines.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

(ANSWER)

General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is a "recommendation" that was attempted to be implemented but was interfered with by the Arab League. Adverse actions by the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Hostile Arab Palestinians, have consequence. The is especially true when the action involved the coordinated attack by the immediately surrounding Arab League Nations (and more).

You should also remember that the:

• The Fourth Geneva Convention did not go into effect until October 1950, after the annexation of the West Bank by parties to the Arab League.

• The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons did not go into effect until 1954.

• The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not go into effect until after the 1948-49 War of Independence.
​

But even if any were, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
​

Remember, the Arab Committee declared its intention and threat to open and continue a conflict with the Jewish People over the establishment of the Jewish State in the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee. This threat was made before the War of Independence. The movement of Arab Palestinians out from the rear area was a military imperative to remove a threat potential.

The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm its position that the Arabs of Palestine would not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. Arab Palestinians made a solemn declaration that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man. This is a threat. It is a threat that has been backed-up by deeds. The scope and nature of the threat has been demonstrated to the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't be fooled by this logic.

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

(COMMENT)

Any one, any where has the right to self-determination. But again, such decision have consequences.

Relative to our debate, it has no real effect. Even the US Constitution has limits to self-determination including the overthrow of the government to form a new government. Most countries have these very same laws, including limitations on conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state (guilt attaches even though the crime was not actually committed).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well there are answers to all of this issues.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.
Israel never had a defined territory.

(ANSWER)

Independence was through the declarative theory of sovereignty. The original delcaration was based on the UN Recommendation which Israel followed. But short lived, because of the external interference and act of aggression on the part of the entire Arab League (5 National Armies), when the smoke cleared and the Armistice Lines where drawn, the State of Israel established sovereignty over the additional territory. Israel has been enforcing that very same border as (defined) sovereign territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

(ANSWER)

The will of the Jewish People, through the voice of the Jewish Aagency, established the Provisional Government and successfully defended it against the Arab League (more than once).

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(ANSWER)

TheJewish State of Israel established the nation under the rule of law, in the shadow of a Jewish-Arab Civil War, and then against Hostile Arab Palestinians. There was no refugee movements after the succession of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Lines.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

(ANSWER)

General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is a "recommendation" that was attempted to be implemented but was interfered with by the Arab League. (Adverse actions by the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Hostile Arab Palestinians, have consequence. The is especially true when the action involved the coordinated attack by the immediately surrounding Arab League Nations (and more).

You should also remember that the:

• The Fourth Geneva Convention did not go into effect until October 1950, after the annexation of the West Bank by parties to the Arab League.

• The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons did not go into effect until 1954.

• The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not go into effect until after the 1948-49 War of Independence.
​

But even if any were, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
​

Remember, the Arab Committee declared its intention and threat to open and continue a conflict with the Jewish People over the establishment of the Jewish State in the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee. This threat was made before the War of Independence. The movement of Arab Palestinians out from the rear area was a military imperative to remove a threat potential.

The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm its position that the Arabs of Palestine would not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. Arab Palestinians made a solemn declaration that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man. This is a threat. It is a threat that has been backed-up by deeds. The scope and nature of the threat has been demonstrated to the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of that refutes my post.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

 

[Shusha]

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine.

You are the one who has trouble understanding this. Note my emphasis.

The Jewish Palestinian citizens have the right to self-determination. Just as the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian citizens do. (seperate from one another).

The only question is which territory should be included in each group's national homeland. If THAT were the only source of the conflict, Team Israel and Team Palestine could have that solved in less than an hour. Indeed, it has been solved dozens of times in dozens of attempts at peace negotiations for the past 100 years. The only reason it doesn't become an actuality is because Team Palestine refuses to acknowledge the rights of Israel and the Jewish people.

Come on, I dare you. Let's start with the premise that each group has rights to part of the territory and see how long it takes us to divy it up.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

You asked a question; and I answered each point.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

(COMMENT)

It is precisely these points that make you points or claims irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?

I am just referring to the legitimate Palestinians citizens.

You have made no case for squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon to be citizens of a nation that didn't exist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

You asked a question; and I answered each point.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

(COMMENT)

It is precisely these points that make you points or claims irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

My references are valid. Nothing you posted changes that.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore,

You asked a question; and I answered each point.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

(COMMENT)

It is precisely these points that make you points or claims irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

My references are valid. Nothing you posted changes that.

What a shame you don't understand the absurdity of such groundless "...... because I say so", nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

P F Tinmore,

You asked a question; and I answered each point.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

(COMMENT)

It is precisely these points that make you points or claims irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

My references are valid. Nothing you posted changes that.

What a shame you don't understand the absurdity of such groundless "...... because I say so", nonsense.

The "Palestinians" are groundless. Going on nearly 70 years now.

 

[Shusha]

There are many legal issues with the creation of Israel. Giving people the boot is only one of them.

Well, then, feel free to elaborate, as you failed to do in your original post.

Well, just a few off the top of my head.

The Montevideo Conference said that states should have a defined territory.

Israel never had a defined territory.

According to the rule of popular sovereignty, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

Israel's government was established with the opposition of the vast majority of the people.

According to the rule of state succession, (and reiterated in Resolution 181) all of the citizens of Palestine who normally lived in the territory that became Israel will be Israeli citizens.

They didn't get citizenship, they got the boot.

I feel compelled to answer this since Rocco's more than adequate and excellent response (as usual) seems to escape you.

You claim three things here:

1. States must have a defined territory.
2. Sovereignty arises from the will of the people.
3. When one State succeeds another, all those normally residing in the territory become citizens of that State.


1.

A) When are States required to have a defined territory? Are they required to have such a definition before they become States? I think you will find this condition untenable in law, as many States come into being through conflict, and many States have outstanding border or territorial disputes, without negating their status as Nations. (Canada and USA come to mind, as well as others). Indeed, I think you will find that a defined territory is one of the last things to happen in the course of the creation of a State -- the result of peace treaties made between neighbors.

B) Any argument you could put forth which defines the boundaries of "Palestine" also defines the boundaries of "Israel". You and I agree there is no treaty (yet) which separates one from the other (other than carving Jordan off). Your argument that Israel can't exist because it has no boundaries applies equally to Palestine. Likewise, your argument that Palestine exists because it has boundaries applies equally to Israel.

2.

If sovereignty arises from the will of the people, and if EACH people within a territory has the same (EQUAL) rights to inherent, inalienable human rights then the sovereignty of the territory -- by your definition -- belongs to BOTH the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians. Sovereignty does not only apply to the majority people of a place. Nor do rights to self-determination apply only to the majority peoples of a place.

3.

Is irrelevant unless you acknowledge that Israel succeeded the trust of the Mandate. I'd like to see you concede that.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Each question and assertion you made was answered and addressed respectively.

P F Tinmore,

You asked a question; and I answered each point.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

(COMMENT)

It is precisely these points that make you points or claims irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

My references are valid. Nothing you posted changes that.

(COMMENT)

I (you or anyone) can reference the mass of the moon (10^24 kg) and it be true. That does not mean it is applicable or applied appropriately to the issue under discussion. (See Posting #147)

BTW: You say "valid" as if that has anything to do with the discussion. Good structure and form doesn't have a relationship to the issues at hand. (A Matter of Reference: Dr Condoleezza "Condi" Rice use to play that game.)

• validity: a property of arguments, i.e., that they have a good structure.
• soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

...Oh really. Examples?

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table

 

[theliq]

BDS was called by the Palestinians. If another people call for a boycott that would be considered. Is there anyone else calling for a boycott?

Not the morally correct question. (Actually, a moral refusal -- an acknowledgement that only people having tantrums deserve to have their moral rights upheld.) The morally correct question is why you (as a non-Palestinian) don't insist that all illegal nations be brought into alignment with "international law".


And also, again, why do Jewish Palestinians not have the same rights as Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinians with respect to independence, self-determination and self-government?

Why do you have so much trouble with such a simple process?

All of the people who became Palestinian citizens according to the Treaty of Lausanne have the right to self determination in Palestine. Those who were citizens of other places have the right to self determination in those other places.

I am a US citizen. I have the right to self determination in the US. I cannot make that claim in Britain or France.

Why do you then insist that squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon have the islamo-right to self determination in a geographic region called 'Pal'istan'?

You forgot as Usual the most Important Squatters,Gypos and Invaders.......THE SYNTHETIC JEWS.....Hollie you are a conniving LIAR

As for a Boycott,Here in Australia,they sell Palestinian Mud,Face Packs etc.........from and on Palestinian Land as a Product of Israel,when I questioned this to the very nice Jewish couple.....They admitted I was Right.

 

[Kondor3]

...Oh really. Examples?

How many times did the Israeli Prime Minister and other officials approach the Palestinians, and Jordanians, to reach a permanent settlement of differences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Peace_Initiative

Here's an appetizer... but it's a serve-yourself buffet...

If I had been offered 100% of NOTHING,I would have refused,it was an offer NO ONE would accept........ even the JEWS THEMSELVES had it been offered to them.

As for your serve yourself buffet..........Considering you only offererd CRUMBS

And CUT the Arrogant Smarmy Talk,you are VOID of SINCERITY.........what I call a Dog at the Table

Your opinion of me does not interest me in the slightest, Fatima...