The Myth of Occupied Territories

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You inject real estate terms into the process all the time. It is a false and misleading conjecture to suggest a land transfer is ever involved in the process of establishing independence.

Yes it did. No land was transferred to Israel for its state.

Israel had to put its state inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no land transfer in the establishment of any of the Mandate countries that went independent.

Of course Israel was established inside the former Mandate of Palestine. That is the name the Allied Powers gave the region while it was under their administration and control.

Don't try to suggest that some sort of land transfer was a prerequisite to implementation. It was not one of the steps preparatory to independence. That is just some fictitious process the contemporary Palestinian uses to suggest something is faulty with the means by which Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Yemen used to establish independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You inject real estate terms into the process all the time. It is a false and misleading conjecture to suggest a land transfer is ever involved in the process of establishing independence.

Yes it did. No land was transferred to Israel for its state.

Israel had to put its state inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no land transfer in the establishment of any of the Mandate countries that went independent.

Of course Israel was established inside the former Mandate of Palestine. That is the name the Allied Powers gave the region while it was under their administration and control.
Don't try to suggest that some sort of land transfer was a prerequisite to implementation. It was not one of the steps preparatory to independence. That is just some fictitious process the contemporary Palestinian uses to suggest something is faulty with the means by which Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Yemen used to establish independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, you keep talking about CONTROL as though it w3as ownership. The Control was imposed by the War victors via the UN which gave them a Trust, not a Dictatorship. Israel did win the battle for her so-called Independence, but the War is yet to be settled.

 

[docmauser1]

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there for generations.

What do native americans have to say on that?

the difference is, the Muslims have the overwhelming manpower to get it back in time.

Which in plain English means "to try and redistribute (ie loot) the jewish property", of course.

 

[docmauser1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You inject real estate terms into the process all the time. It is a false and misleading conjecture to suggest a land transfer is ever involved in the process of establishing independence.

Yes it did. No land was transferred to Israel for its state.

Israel had to put its state inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no land transfer in the establishment of any of the Mandate countries that went independent.

Of course Israel was established inside the former Mandate of Palestine. That is the name the Allied Powers gave the region while it was under their administration and control.
Don't try to suggest that some sort of land transfer was a prerequisite to implementation. It was not one of the steps preparatory to independence. That is just some fictitious process the contemporary Palestinian uses to suggest something is faulty with the means by which Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Yemen used to establish independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, you keep talking about CONTROL as though it w3as ownership. The Control was imposed by the War victors via the UN which gave them a Trust, not a Dictatorship. Israel did win the battle for her so-called Independence, but the War is yet to be settled.

Ah, warmongering arabs.

 

[pbel]

What do native americans have to say on that?

the difference is, the Muslims have the overwhelming manpower to get it back in time.

Which in plain English means "to try and redistribute (ie loot) the jewish property", of course.

Oh yea, I forgot, god gave to the Jews at creation 5,000 years ago... Tx. for the info.

 

[docmauser1]

the difference is, the Muslims have the overwhelming manpower to get it back in time.

Which in plain English means "to try and redistribute (ie loot) the jewish property", of course.

Oh yea, I forgot, god gave to the Jews at creation 5,000 years ago... Tx. for the info.

It's the will of allah.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You inject real estate terms into the process all the time. It is a false and misleading conjecture to suggest a land transfer is ever involved in the process of establishing independence.

Yes it did. No land was transferred to Israel for its state.

Israel had to put its state inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no land transfer in the establishment of any of the Mandate countries that went independent.

Of course Israel was established inside the former Mandate of Palestine. That is the name the Allied Powers gave the region while it was under their administration and control.

Don't try to suggest that some sort of land transfer was a prerequisite to implementation. It was not one of the steps preparatory to independence. That is just some fictitious process the contemporary Palestinian uses to suggest something is faulty with the means by which Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Yemen used to establish independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because the natives created their states not a bunch of foreigners out of Europe. There was no transfer needed.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

You are confused.

Again, you keep talking about CONTROL as though it w3as ownership. The Control was imposed by the War victors via the UN which gave them a Trust, not a Dictatorship. Israel did win the battle for her so-called Independence, but the War is yet to be settled.

(COMMENT)

There was Treaty in which the territory was passed by the Ottoman successors relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers (Article 139 - Treaty of Sevres). THEN, there was the independence declared by the people [under GA RES 181(II)]. The War of Independence comes immediately on the heals of Declaration of Independence.

The War of Independence was fought between Israel and the Arab League (invading Arab Armies); not with Palestine. There was no such country as Palestine. The establishment of Palestine did not happen until 1988 [BTW there was no land transfer there either. It was accomplished under GA RES 181(II)]. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine in 1967 Occupation Outcome. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine at the conclusion of the 1973 Arab Sneak Attack. Between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was occupied by the Egyptians and the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. During those two decades, the Palestinians exercised no rights of self-determination (independence). It was only after Israeli occupation that the Palestinians were able to declare independence.

Under treaty law, not every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties; but in the case of occupation, that capacity did not exist for Palestinians until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

You are confused.

Again, you keep talking about CONTROL as though it w3as ownership. The Control was imposed by the War victors via the UN which gave them a Trust, not a Dictatorship. Israel did win the battle for her so-called Independence, but the War is yet to be settled.

(COMMENT)

There was Treaty in which the territory was passed by the Ottoman successors relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers (Article 139 - Treaty of Sevres). THEN, there was the independence declared by the people [under GA RES 181(II)]. The War of Independence comes immediately on the heals of Declaration of Independence.

The War of Independence was fought between Israel and the Arab League (invading Arab Armies); not with Palestine. There was no such country as Palestine. The establishment of Palestine did not happen until 1988 [BTW there was no land transfer there either. It was accomplished under GA RES 181(II)]. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine in 1967 Occupation Outcome. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine at the conclusion of the 1973 Arab Sneak Attack. Between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was occupied by the Egyptians and the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. During those two decades, the Palestinians exercised no rights of self-determination (independence). It was only after Israeli occupation that the Palestinians were able to declare independence.

Under treaty law, not every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties; but in the case of occupation, that capacity did not exist for Palestinians until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

Phony argument.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

The Palestinians fought for their rights all through the British and Israeli occupations.

 

[Billo_Really]

Indeed, it's an arab bullshitt issue.

No it's not.

It's the position of every country on the planet, including the Israeli High Court.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

You are confused.

Again, you keep talking about CONTROL as though it w3as ownership. The Control was imposed by the War victors via the UN which gave them a Trust, not a Dictatorship. Israel did win the battle for her so-called Independence, but the War is yet to be settled.

(COMMENT)

There was Treaty in which the territory was passed by the Ottoman successors relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers (Article 139 - Treaty of Sevres). THEN, there was the independence declared by the people [under GA RES 181(II)]. The War of Independence comes immediately on the heals of Declaration of Independence.

The War of Independence was fought between Israel and the Arab League (invading Arab Armies); not with Palestine. There was no such country as Palestine. The establishment of Palestine did not happen until 1988 [BTW there was no land transfer there either. It was accomplished under GA RES 181(II)]. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine in 1967 Occupation Outcome. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine at the conclusion of the 1973 Arab Sneak Attack. Between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was occupied by the Egyptians and the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. During those two decades, the Palestinians exercised no rights of self-determination (independence). It was only after Israeli occupation that the Palestinians were able to declare independence.

Under treaty law, not every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties; but in the case of occupation, that capacity did not exist for Palestinians until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, it is you who is confused...The Ottomans were one of the many Sovereigns that Administered Palestine over two millennia...They did not transfer any rights of the residents who paid taxes to the powers in place...You're confusion appears to be that somehow forced sovereignty imposed is the final arbiter.

That has never been the case on planet earth...Empires come and go, ask the Russians?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore et al,

Maybe I should have stated this better.

Phony argument.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

The Palestinians fought for their rights all through the British and Israeli occupations.

(COMMENT)

There was no treaty between Israel and the Palestinians at the conclusion of the wars because they didn't have the capacity under Part II - Section 1 - Conclusion of Treaties,
Article 6, 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES. The reason they did not have capacity is because they did not exercise their right of self-determination and declare independence until 1988.

BTW: The struggle was not over the right of self-determination, but allowing the Arab Palestinian to declare independence over territory already sovereign under Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

pbel, et al,

You are confused.

Again, you keep talking about CONTROL as though it w3as ownership. The Control was imposed by the War victors via the UN which gave them a Trust, not a Dictatorship. Israel did win the battle for her so-called Independence, but the War is yet to be settled.

(COMMENT)

There was Treaty in which the territory was passed by the Ottoman successors relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers (Article 139 - Treaty of Sevres). THEN, there was the independence declared by the people [under GA RES 181(II)]. The War of Independence comes immediately on the heals of Declaration of Independence.

The War of Independence was fought between Israel and the Arab League (invading Arab Armies); not with Palestine. There was no such country as Palestine. The establishment of Palestine did not happen until 1988 [BTW there was no land transfer there either. It was accomplished under GA RES 181(II)]. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine in 1967 Occupation Outcome. Nor was there a Government/State of Palestine at the conclusion of the 1973 Arab Sneak Attack. Between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was occupied by the Egyptians and the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. During those two decades, the Palestinians exercised no rights of self-determination (independence). It was only after Israeli occupation that the Palestinians were able to declare independence.
Under treaty law, not every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties; but in the case of occupation, that capacity did not exist for Palestinians until 1988.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

And, indeed, arabs self-determined not to have a state, but to plunder a state of others, of course. And got a boot stuck in their arse for that.

The Palestinians fought for their rights all through the British and Israeli occupations.

How so, if arabs have had no land and no borders?

 

[Billo_Really]

BTW: The struggle was not over the right of self-determination, but allowing the Arab Palestinian to declare independence over territory already sovereign under Israel.

There is not one UN resolution, or any country on this planet, that backs you up on that position.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore et al,

Maybe I should have stated this better.

Phony argument.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

The Palestinians fought for their rights all through the British and Israeli occupations.

(COMMENT)

There was no treaty between Israel and the Palestinians at the conclusion of the wars because they didn't have the capacity under Part II - Section 1 - Conclusion of Treaties,
Article 6, 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES. The reason they did not have capacity is because they did not exercise their right of self-determination and declare independence until 1988.

BTW: The struggle was not over the right of self-determination, but allowing the Arab Palestinian to declare independence over territory already sovereign under Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians declared independence on its own land inside its own borders before the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory when the armistice agreements were signed. Israel agreed that it had no territory when it signed the agreements.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore et al,

Maybe I should have stated this better.

Phony argument.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

The Palestinians fought for their rights all through the British and Israeli occupation.

(COMMENT)

There was no treaty between Israel and the Palestinians at the conclusion of the wars because they didn't have the capacity under Part II - Section 1 - Conclusion of Treaties,
Article 6, 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES. The reason they did not have capacity is because they did not exercise their right of self-determination and declare independence until 1988.

BTW: The struggle was not over the right of self-determination, but allowing the Arab Palestinian to declare independence over territory already sovereign under Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep bringing up Conventions, I.e. Vienna, besides that Convection happened many years after Israel declared a state taken from Arab lands.

 

[docmauser1]

Indeed, it's an arab bullshitt issue.

No it's not.

Of course, it is.

It's the position of every country on the planet, including the Israeli High Court.

Noone is perfect, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

BTW: The struggle was not over the right of self-determination, but allowing the Arab Palestinian to declare independence over territory already sovereign under Israel.

There is not one UN resolution, or any country on this planet, that backs you up on that position.

Which confirms the UN is a joke, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

The Palestinians declared independence on its own land inside its own borders before the armistice agreements.

How so, if they have had no land and no borders? Who transferred land to them?

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

This is a jumble set of nonsense.

Rocco, it is you who is confused...The Ottomans were one of the many Sovereigns that Administered Palestine over two millennia...They did not transfer any rights of the residents who paid taxes to the powers in place...You're confusion appears to be that somehow forced sovereignty imposed is the final arbiter.

That has never been the case on planet earth...Empires come and go, ask the Russians?

(COMMENT)

The Ottomans captured the territory and established sovereignty over by defeating the Mamelukes in combat (forced imposed sovereignty under the Ottoman Empire). Similarly, the territory of Puerto Rico is an unincorporated protectorate, but Sovereign Territory of the United States won at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War; as was the Philippine Islands (forced imposed sovereignty). And Alaska was purchased from Russia (forced imposed sovereignty). Taiwan is an autonomous East Asia island state; yet it is also sovereign dominion of the People's Republic of China (PRC)(the Chinese say a rouge state); it is not a separate and independent nation.

You are confusing "civil rights" (private land ownership) with "sovereignty" (territorial control or national authority over a geographic area). They are not the same thing.

BTW: Who you pay taxes to is entirely a separate issue from sovereignty. It is purely an administrative matter. There are a number of countries that don't have any income taxes at all; many of which are Arab States (UAE, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Brunei Darussalam, The Bahamas, to name a few. Oddly enough, once a US citizen becomes a resident of Puerto Rico, any income derived by that person from sources within Puerto Rico is excluded from U.S. federal income tax).​

Maybe I misunderstood you.

Most Respectfully,
R