The Myth of Occupied Territories

[docmauser1]

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.

Convection is as old as the world and is still valid, of course.

 

[pbel]

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

Alaska voted for Statehood, Puerto Rico has not...Imposed Sovereignties are never final as it never was or is in Palestine, you did not misunderstand.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

I was applying it to the Palestinians.

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.

(COMMENT)

They could not enter into a treaty of peace because they were not a country. And that is old law, dating back more than a thousand years. You had to be a sovereign power to enter into a treaty with another sovereign power.

QUESTION: What Arab Lands?

It was Ottoman Territory then Mandate Territory. No Arab had sovereignty over the land. Every state that borders Israel owes their independence to the Allied Powers; granting them the right of self-determination. That was something the Allied Powers did that had not been done since the time of Alexander.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

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?

Rome, when they vacated the area.

 

[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?

Rome, when they vacated the area.

A copy of the deed would be appreciated, of course.

 

[pbel]

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

Rome, when they vacated the area.

A copy of the deed would be appreciated, of course.

Never given a deed, may retake it...The people left were the Jews now called Palestinians.

 

[docmauser1]

Rome, when they vacated the area.

A copy of the deed would be appreciated, of course.

Never given a deed, may retake it...The people left were the Jews now called Palestinians.

So, palistanians have no land and no borders, of course. Why's our honorable P F Tinmore making stuff up?

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

I was applying it to the Palestinians.

P F Tinmore et al,

Maybe I should have stated this better.


(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.

(COMMENT)

They could not enter into a treaty of peace because they were not a country. And that is old law, dating back more than a thousand years. You had to be a sovereign power to enter into a treaty with another sovereign power.

QUESTION: What Arab Lands?

It was Ottoman Territory then Mandate Territory. No Arab had sovereignty over the land. Every state that borders Israel owes their independence to the Allied Powers; granting them the right of self-determination. That was something the Allied Powers did that had not been done since the time of Alexander.​

Most Respectfully,
R

So, using your logic, why did the Palestinians not get the right to self determination?

 

[docmauser1]

So, using your logic, why did the Palestinians not get the right to self determination?

Why? They got it, but the idea of plundering jewish property was stronger then the idea of self-determination, of course. Old habits that is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

I was applying it to the Palestinians.

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.

(COMMENT)

They could not enter into a treaty of peace because they were not a country. And that is old law, dating back more than a thousand years. You had to be a sovereign power to enter into a treaty with another sovereign power.

QUESTION: What Arab Lands?

It was Ottoman Territory then Mandate Territory. No Arab had sovereignty over the land. Every state that borders Israel owes their independence to the Allied Powers; granting them the right of self-determination. That was something the Allied Powers did that had not been done since the time of Alexander.​

Most Respectfully,
R

So, using your logic, why did the Palestinians not get the right to self determination?

Good point. Rights are inherent not granted.

 

[docmauser1]

So, using your logic, why did the Palestinians not get the right to self determination?

Good point. Rights are inherent not granted.

Is plundering jewish property an inherent arab right?

 

[Billo_Really]

Which confirms the UN is a joke, of course.

So you're saying, "your right" and the entire world is "wrong"?

Do you really expect people to believe that?

 

[docmauser1]

Which confirms the UN is a joke, of course.

So you're saying, "your right" and the entire world is "wrong"? Do you really expect people to believe that?

Folks believed the earth was flat too, of course. And the UN arab-muslim block bozos make it a circus.

 

[pbel]

Which confirms the UN is a joke, of course.

So you're saying, "your right" and the entire world is "wrong"?

Do you really expect people to believe that?

No Billo his Comic retorts are a way to digress from the truth. Don't expect Mauser to enter a discussion of facts. That's his job, dancing with untrue phrases. That is a tactic utilized by many Zionists...you know: " There was never a Country named Palestine, or it was always our land."

That's why we ignore him after a few threads.

 

[abu afak]

No Billo his Comic retorts are a way to digress from the truth. Don't expect Mauser to enter a discussion of facts. That's his job, dancing with untrue phrases. That is a tactic utilized by many Zionists...you know: " There was never a Country named Palestine, or it was always our land."

That's why we ignore him after a few threads.

Actually, YOU, along with Tinhead Youtubes (they are even more blatant propaganda hard to refute/quote words), are the daily user of Untrue phrases and Biased Propaganda string starts.

There was indeed "No country Named Palestine", BUT unlike your Strawman, it has been conquered And Inhabited by Many people.
The Jews being One of them, and they were continuous if sparse inhabitants at many/most times.
The last self-ruling country on that land was in fact Israel I.

Of course, the Zionists realized this and Accepted the Partition. Arabs wanted it all.
Thus the conflict.
-

 

[Billo_Really]

Folks believed the earth was flat too, of course. And the UN arab-muslim block bozos make it a circus.

The problem is, your position is so ridiculous, that you're running around telling anyone who'll listen, that the world really is flat. And all the satellite photos and eye-witness accounts from those who have been to the moon that are refuting what you claim, you insist that they're the "circus".

Do you not see just how deranged that thinking is?

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually, YOU, along with Tinhead Youtubes (they are even more blatant propaganda hard to refute/quote words), are the daily user of Untrue phrases and Biased Propaganda string starts.

There was indeed "No country Named Palestine", BUT unlike your Strawman, it has been conquered And Inhabited by Many people.
The Jews being One of them, and they were continuous if sparse inhabitants at many/most times.
The last self-ruling country on that land was in fact Israel I.

Of course, the Zionists realized this and Accepted the Partition. Arabs wanted it all.
Thus the conflict.
-

All they want, is the same rights everyone in the fucking world enjoys, but you have issues with that.

 

[pbel]

No Billo his Comic retorts are a way to digress from the truth. Don't expect Mauser to enter a discussion of facts. That's his job, dancing with untrue phrases. That is a tactic utilized by many Zionists...you know: " There was never a Country named Palestine, or it was always our land."

That's why we ignore him after a few threads.

Actually, YOU, along with Tinhead Youtubes (they are even more blatant propaganda hard to refute/quote words), are the daily user of Untrue phrases and Biased Propaganda string starts.

There was indeed "No country Named Palestine", BUT unlike your Strawman, it has been conquered And Inhabited by Many people.
The Jews being One of them, and they were continuous if sparse inhabitants at many/most times.
The last self-ruling country on that land was in fact Israel I.

Of course, the Zionists realized this and Accepted the Partition. Arabs wanted it all.
Thus the conflict.
-

You might just be the Mauser's Assistant when you repeat that there was no Country Called Palestine, you might also add in fairness that there was no country named Israel...but as you know, your phrase is used to deceive by implying the land was there for the taking, which is and was horrendously wrong by International standards of behavior and law...

And that Fact still haunts the Israeli State to this day.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think there is a misunderstanding as to the "right of self-determination" and what it is.

Good point. Rights are inherent not granted.

(COMMENT)

The right of "Self-Determination" is "the right of all peoples to be able to determine their own political future and also to be able to pursue their economic, social and cultural development and ambitions;" a freely expressed will of the peoples, not to be confused with secession of the state.

For a new state to be formed from another state there needs to be "consent of the parent state." The UN, as the trustee of the territory, acted on behalf of the World Body as that parent by Treaty and Mandate. The sovereignty of the existing State of Israel must be respected and its territorial integrity must be upheld. Palestinian Self-determination must duly comply with the principles of sovereignty exercised by Israel.

Nothing in the Palestinian "right of self-determination" should be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair the State of Israel with regard to its territorial integrity or the political unity. And by the same token, Israel has not, without just cause - demonstrated by threat, intimidation and direct lethal hostile action, limited the ability of the Palestinian to determine its own political future and pursue their economic, social and cultural development and ambitions; except as has been necessary to protect and defend the sovereignty of the existing State of Israel.

What does this mean in practical terms?

The Palestinians have NO inherent right to the territory, under the boundaries established by the former British Mandate. That territory is NOT an indivisible territorial unit. The Arab-Palestinian people possess no legal right to this territory (the entirety) and have NO right to determine the destiny already under the sovereignty of the State of Israel.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think there is a misunderstanding as to the "right of self-determination" and what it is.

Good point. Rights are inherent not granted.

(COMMENT)

The right of "Self-Determination" is "the right of all peoples to be able to determine their own political future and also to be able to pursue their economic, social and cultural development and ambitions;" a freely expressed will of the peoples, not to be confused with secession of the state.

For a new state to be formed from another state there needs to be "consent of the parent state." The UN, as the trustee of the territory, acted on behalf of the World Body as that parent by Treaty and Mandate. The sovereignty of the existing State of Israel must be respected and its territorial integrity must be upheld. Palestinian Self-determination must duly comply with the principles of sovereignty exercised by Israel.

Nothing in the Palestinian "right of self-determination" should be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair the State of Israel with regard to its territorial integrity or the political unity. And by the same token, Israel has not, without just cause - demonstrated by threat, intimidation and direct lethal hostile action, limited the ability of the Palestinian to determine its own political future and pursue their economic, social and cultural development and ambitions; except as has been necessary to protect and defend the sovereignty of the existing State of Israel.

What does this mean in practical terms?

The Palestinians have NO inherent right to the territory, under the boundaries established by the former British Mandate. That territory is NOT an indivisible territorial unit. The Arab-Palestinian people possess no legal right to this territory (the entirety) and have NO right to determine the destiny already under the sovereignty of the State of Israel.​

Most Respectfully,
R

UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 disagree with you.

And so does every country on the planet.