The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth

[P F Tinmore]

Not only open air, but at times, and nowadays in Gaza, a maximum-security prison. Recently, the Israeli government officially celebrated the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Already in 1967, Judea and Samaria, namely the West Bank, were liberated areas, not territories to be held in custody for the return of a peace agreement, in the eyes of all the Zionist parties, while Gaza was seen as an enclave that had to be always guarded either from within or without.

Thus in 1967, the Israeli government then -- and all the successive governments since -- regarded the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as territories that had always be under either direct or indirect Israeli rule. The second decision was that the people who live in these territories will not be granted Israeli citizenship, nor were they allowed to have their own sovereignty or independence. They were also not driven out, as were the Palestinians in 1948. So, they were intentionally defined as people without citizen rights and at the mercy of first military rule, and then civil administration that did not only violate their civic rights, but also their human rights. The only system I know where people are deprived of these basic rights is the prison system. These people were incarcerated in this mega-prison for no other crime than being Palestinians. They were allowed some benefits, such as working in Israel and a limited measure of autonomy if they consented to such life -- this is the open prison model, and they were collectively punished when they resisted, and this is the maximum-security prison.

The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth

Any war that could have been prevented by active and intensive diplomacy is a war of choice.

Wowowee! You know they're getting desperate when they start with the "biggest prison on earth" crapola.

Here are some images of this so called "prison"...just look at all that SUFFERING! Ha ha ha!

your first photo is of dubai international airport your 2nd photo is Tel Aviv
INOLVIDABLE TEL AVIV

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...

Over-fed In Gaza LOL

That was before the siege. They haven't had any customers since.

 

[JoelT1]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ JoelT1, et al,

As much as I would like to agree with you, ---- ancient claims do not justify a contemporary conflict. Certainly, such ancient past events can be used to establish a "historical connection;" but, NOT a claim to sovereignty. In the days that the territory was govern by the Hebrews, 2 to 3 Millennium ago (930 BCE–586 BCE), there was no such thing as International Law, or even the Rule of Law (RoL).

There is no Israeli occupation of territories, especially territories historically named Judea and Samaria. “Jew” derives from “Judea” and Samaria is ancient Jewish land, too

(COMMENT)

We must use the RoL of the modern era.

It is a valid argument to state that when the Territory was "occupied" under the effective control and authority of Israel in August 1988, after Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank, there was no domestic government (Arab Palestinian) in the West Bank to gain consent. Jordan had expressly and implicitly relinquished sovereignty. At the point (1 AUG 88) → "sovereignty over the land belonging to no one" → Israel was the only nation having effective control over the territory.

But at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself: When did the Arab Palestinian ever have sovereign control (the ultimate authority to impose law) over any part of the territory in dispute?

Most Respectfully,
R

Renowned legal scholar Eugene Rostow puts the matter to rest: There is no Israeli occupation Google Groups

Eugene Rostow Eugene V. Rostow '37: Dean, Scholar, Statesman - Yale Law School

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

Eugene Rostow was Dean of Yale Law School. We will defer to him

 

[rylah]

Not only open air, but at times, and nowadays in Gaza, a maximum-security prison. Recently, the Israeli government officially celebrated the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Already in 1967, Judea and Samaria, namely the West Bank, were liberated areas, not territories to be held in custody for the return of a peace agreement, in the eyes of all the Zionist parties, while Gaza was seen as an enclave that had to be always guarded either from within or without.

Thus in 1967, the Israeli government then -- and all the successive governments since -- regarded the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as territories that had always be under either direct or indirect Israeli rule. The second decision was that the people who live in these territories will not be granted Israeli citizenship, nor were they allowed to have their own sovereignty or independence. They were also not driven out, as were the Palestinians in 1948. So, they were intentionally defined as people without citizen rights and at the mercy of first military rule, and then civil administration that did not only violate their civic rights, but also their human rights. The only system I know where people are deprived of these basic rights is the prison system. These people were incarcerated in this mega-prison for no other crime than being Palestinians. They were allowed some benefits, such as working in Israel and a limited measure of autonomy if they consented to such life -- this is the open prison model, and they were collectively punished when they resisted, and this is the maximum-security prison.

The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth

Any war that could have been prevented by active and intensive diplomacy is a war of choice.

Wowowee! You know they're getting desperate when they start with the "biggest prison on earth" crapola.

Here are some images of this so called "prison"...just look at all that SUFFERING! Ha ha ha!

your first photo is of dubai international airport your 2nd photo is Tel Aviv
INOLVIDABLE TEL AVIV

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...

Over-fed In Gaza LOL

That was before the siege. They haven't had any customers since.

Really??
This is Hamas tourism advertisement, good for them I guess.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wowowee! You know they're getting desperate when they start with the "biggest prison on earth" crapola.

Here are some images of this so called "prison"...just look at all that SUFFERING! Ha ha ha!

your first photo is of dubai international airport your 2nd photo is Tel Aviv
INOLVIDABLE TEL AVIV

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...

Over-fed In Gaza LOL

That was before the siege. They haven't had any customers since.

Really??
This is Hamas tourism advertisement, good for them I guess.

Notice that those attractions are empty.

 

[rylah]

your first photo is of dubai international airport your 2nd photo is Tel Aviv
INOLVIDABLE TEL AVIV

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...

Over-fed In Gaza LOL

That was before the siege. They haven't had any customers since.

Really??
This is Hamas tourism advertisement, good for them I guess.

Notice that those attractions are empty.

You try so hard... it's surely hard to smuggle all those Harley Davidsons and Drift Cars through the tunnels
This is Hamas advertisement for tourism:

 

[rylah]

A prison that builds Formula cars??
Where in Israel can I ride a formula....Gaza
Well not really, because Jews are not allowed in that prison, nevertheless:

 

[P F Tinmore]

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...

Over-fed In Gaza LOL

That was before the siege. They haven't had any customers since.

Really??
This is Hamas tourism advertisement, good for them I guess.

Notice that those attractions are empty.

You try so hard... it's surely hard to smuggle all those Harley Davidsons and Drift Cars through the tunnels
This is Hamas advertisement for tourism:

Good video though. Take it down to your local travel agent and book a trip.

 

[fanger]

Here are some images of this so called "prison"...just look at all that SUFFERING! Ha ha ha!

your first photo is of dubai international airport your 2nd photo is Tel Aviv
INOLVIDABLE TEL AVIV

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...[/QUOTE]
No, The first photo is Dubai check the url htt p://arabiangazette.com/wp-content/uploads /2012/12/Shoppers-at-Dubai-International-Airport. jpg

The 2nd photo is Tel aviv beach front

 

[rylah]

Here are some images of this so called "prison"...just look at all that SUFFERING! Ha ha ha!

your first photo is of dubai international airport your 2nd photo is Tel Aviv
INOLVIDABLE TEL AVIV

First photo is Al-Mashtal Hotel Gaza.. Iyad Kuhail Might need Facebook access to see the pages for it. 2nd photo IS Dubai...

This sure looks like Tel-Aviv, but it's actually Gaza.
Is it how prisons look in the US?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, JoelT1, et al,

This is a good argument. And is part of the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords).

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

Whether or not the intent of the Mandate was to restrict the Arab Palestinian Right to self-determination is moot. The Mandate terminated on 15 May 1948. The Annexation Action by Jordan took place 2 years later in April 1950. The applicability of the Mandate had expired.

The Precedence even becomes more applicable and stronger when coupled with the fact that the Annexation of the West Bank (Unification of the Two Banks) was approved by the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." (Precedence: UN Charter - Chapter I, Article 1(2) "Based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.)

The Annexation by Jordan was generally considered a unilateral action → made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. It is sometimes interpreted that Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits any annexation by the Occupying Power of any part of the territory under occupation is arguable.

The want and need by Israel of Political Legitimacy and International Law (considered separate and distinct) relative to its action within East Jerusalem (annexed) and the West Bank is becoming less and less important. The Arab Palestinians have been obstructionists to the establishment of Peace since the unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army to claim Israeli Independent territory; more than a half century ago has been replayed twice again with failed results. It is the Arab Palestinian opinion, by action and deed, that any territory overrun by Israeli Forces while in pursuit of the aggressor Arab Palestinians, should be return to Arab Palestinian Control so that may reconstitute forces and arsenals for yet another bid against Israel. The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

Pro-Arab Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians themselves, need international assistance so to avoid the customary practice of including payments or exchanges, in any treaty negotiation, intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war; as well as the custody of any Arab Palestinian wanted in connection with terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

The Palestinians did not start any war. The Palestinians were attacked by foreign forces in their own homeland.

 

[JoelT1]

The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

The Palestinians did not start any war. The Palestinians were attacked by foreign forces in their own homeland.

There are no palestinians It’s a made-up word coined by the British and originally applied to Jews in the British Mandate temporarily named palestine

Palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews and ancient Israel, about 2000 years ago. And ancient Israel existed 500+ years before Rome, verified by archaeology. There’s also something called the Bible dating back about 3000 years

It’s Jews’ Homeland

 

[JoelT1]

The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

The Palestinians did not start any war. The Palestinians were attacked by foreign forces in their own homeland.

Funny: 3 common “palestinian” surnames are al-Masri “the Egyptian”, al-Iraqi and Maghrebi (N. Africa) Arafat was Egyptian. But, no one is named al-Palestini. Their Arab homelands are elsewhere

 

[JoelT1]

The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

The Palestinians did not start any war. The Palestinians were attacked by foreign forces in their own homeland.

There are no palestinians It’s a made-up word coined by the British and originally applied to Jews in the British Mandate temporarily named palestine

Palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews and ancient Israel, about 2000 years ago.

It’s Jews’ Homeland

Arabs themselves laugh: There are no “palestinians!”

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, JoelT1, et al,

This is a good argument. And is part of the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords).

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

Whether or not the intent of the Mandate was to restrict the Arab Palestinian Right to self-determination is moot. The Mandate terminated on 15 May 1948. The Annexation Action by Jordan took place 2 years later in April 1950. The applicability of the Mandate had expired.

The Precedence even becomes more applicable and stronger when coupled with the fact that the Annexation of the West Bank (Unification of the Two Banks) was approved by the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." (Precedence: UN Charter - Chapter I, Article 1(2) "Based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.)

The Annexation by Jordan was generally considered a unilateral action → made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. It is sometimes interpreted that Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits any annexation by the Occupying Power of any part of the territory under occupation is arguable.

The want and need by Israel of Political Legitimacy and International Law (considered separate and distinct) relative to its action within East Jerusalem (annexed) and the West Bank is becoming less and less important. The Arab Palestinians have been obstructionists to the establishment of Peace since the unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army to claim Israeli Independent territory; more than a half century ago has been replayed twice again with failed results. It is the Arab Palestinian opinion, by action and deed, that any territory overrun by Israeli Forces while in pursuit of the aggressor Arab Palestinians, should be return to Arab Palestinian Control so that may reconstitute forces and arsenals for yet another bid against Israel. The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

Pro-Arab Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians themselves, need international assistance so to avoid the customary practice of including payments or exchanges, in any treaty negotiation, intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war; as well as the custody of any Arab Palestinian wanted in connection with terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

You are still talking about occupied territory. The rules changed when Palestine became a successor state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[JoelT1]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, JoelT1, et al,

This is a good argument. And is part of the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords).

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

Whether or not the intent of the Mandate was to restrict the Arab Palestinian Right to self-determination is moot. The Mandate terminated on 15 May 1948. The Annexation Action by Jordan took place 2 years later in April 1950. The applicability of the Mandate had expired.

The Precedence even becomes more applicable and stronger when coupled with the fact that the Annexation of the West Bank (Unification of the Two Banks) was approved by the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." (Precedence: UN Charter - Chapter I, Article 1(2) "Based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.)

The Annexation by Jordan was generally considered a unilateral action → made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. It is sometimes interpreted that Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits any annexation by the Occupying Power of any part of the territory under occupation is arguable.

The want and need by Israel of Political Legitimacy and International Law (considered separate and distinct) relative to its action within East Jerusalem (annexed) and the West Bank is becoming less and less important. The Arab Palestinians have been obstructionists to the establishment of Peace since the unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army to claim Israeli Independent territory; more than a half century ago has been replayed twice again with failed results. It is the Arab Palestinian opinion, by action and deed, that any territory overrun by Israeli Forces while in pursuit of the aggressor Arab Palestinians, should be return to Arab Palestinian Control so that may reconstitute forces and arsenals for yet another bid against Israel. The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

Pro-Arab Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians themselves, need international assistance so to avoid the customary practice of including payments or exchanges, in any treaty negotiation, intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war; as well as the custody of any Arab Palestinian wanted in connection with terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

You are still talking about occupied territory. The rules changed when Palestine became a successor state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Um, palestine, a Western name for Jews’ historical land, was merely a temporary name for the British Mandate. Both the Mandate and British palestine ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood

No such thing as “palestinians”

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, JoelT1, et al,

This is a good argument. And is part of the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords).

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

Whether or not the intent of the Mandate was to restrict the Arab Palestinian Right to self-determination is moot. The Mandate terminated on 15 May 1948. The Annexation Action by Jordan took place 2 years later in April 1950. The applicability of the Mandate had expired.

The Precedence even becomes more applicable and stronger when coupled with the fact that the Annexation of the West Bank (Unification of the Two Banks) was approved by the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." (Precedence: UN Charter - Chapter I, Article 1(2) "Based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.)

The Annexation by Jordan was generally considered a unilateral action → made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. It is sometimes interpreted that Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits any annexation by the Occupying Power of any part of the territory under occupation is arguable.

The want and need by Israel of Political Legitimacy and International Law (considered separate and distinct) relative to its action within East Jerusalem (annexed) and the West Bank is becoming less and less important. The Arab Palestinians have been obstructionists to the establishment of Peace since the unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army to claim Israeli Independent territory; more than a half century ago has been replayed twice again with failed results. It is the Arab Palestinian opinion, by action and deed, that any territory overrun by Israeli Forces while in pursuit of the aggressor Arab Palestinians, should be return to Arab Palestinian Control so that may reconstitute forces and arsenals for yet another bid against Israel. The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

Pro-Arab Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians themselves, need international assistance so to avoid the customary practice of including payments or exchanges, in any treaty negotiation, intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war; as well as the custody of any Arab Palestinian wanted in connection with terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

States exist as a person under law even if it lacks the power to exercise its rights. A state does not go out of existence because it is under military occupation.

ARTICLE 4​

​

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, JoelT1, et al,

This is a good argument. And is part of the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords).

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

Whether or not the intent of the Mandate was to restrict the Arab Palestinian Right to self-determination is moot. The Mandate terminated on 15 May 1948. The Annexation Action by Jordan took place 2 years later in April 1950. The applicability of the Mandate had expired.

The Precedence even becomes more applicable and stronger when coupled with the fact that the Annexation of the West Bank (Unification of the Two Banks) was approved by the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." (Precedence: UN Charter - Chapter I, Article 1(2) "Based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.)

The Annexation by Jordan was generally considered a unilateral action → made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. It is sometimes interpreted that Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits any annexation by the Occupying Power of any part of the territory under occupation is arguable.

The want and need by Israel of Political Legitimacy and International Law (considered separate and distinct) relative to its action within East Jerusalem (annexed) and the West Bank is becoming less and less important. The Arab Palestinians have been obstructionists to the establishment of Peace since the unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army to claim Israeli Independent territory; more than a half century ago has been replayed twice again with failed results. It is the Arab Palestinian opinion, by action and deed, that any territory overrun by Israeli Forces while in pursuit of the aggressor Arab Palestinians, should be return to Arab Palestinian Control so that may reconstitute forces and arsenals for yet another bid against Israel. The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

Pro-Arab Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians themselves, need international assistance so to avoid the customary practice of including payments or exchanges, in any treaty negotiation, intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war; as well as the custody of any Arab Palestinian wanted in connection with terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

You are still talking about occupied territory. The rules changed when Palestine became a successor state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Um, palestine, a Western name for Jews’ historical land, was merely a temporary name for the British Mandate. Both the Mandate and British palestine ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood

Link?

 

[JoelT1]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, JoelT1, et al,

This is a good argument. And is part of the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords).

From your link:

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.​

Now, RoccoR has consistently stated the West Bank was Sovereign Jordan territory. Of course I have always disagreed with that premise.

Here is where Rostow and I disagree. He states that the land was part of the Mandate. That is not true. One of the tenets of the Mandate was the non annexation of former Turkish territory. The land was directly ceded to the respective successor states.

He also speaks of land not allocated. For one, who has the authority to allocate land. Plus, the land was already ceded to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

Whether or not the intent of the Mandate was to restrict the Arab Palestinian Right to self-determination is moot. The Mandate terminated on 15 May 1948. The Annexation Action by Jordan took place 2 years later in April 1950. The applicability of the Mandate had expired.

The Precedence even becomes more applicable and stronger when coupled with the fact that the Annexation of the West Bank (Unification of the Two Banks) was approved by the "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." (Precedence: UN Charter - Chapter I, Article 1(2) "Based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.)

The Annexation by Jordan was generally considered a unilateral action → made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition. It is sometimes interpreted that Article 47, Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits any annexation by the Occupying Power of any part of the territory under occupation is arguable.

The want and need by Israel of Political Legitimacy and International Law (considered separate and distinct) relative to its action within East Jerusalem (annexed) and the West Bank is becoming less and less important. The Arab Palestinians have been obstructionists to the establishment of Peace since the unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army to claim Israeli Independent territory; more than a half century ago has been replayed twice again with failed results. It is the Arab Palestinian opinion, by action and deed, that any territory overrun by Israeli Forces while in pursuit of the aggressor Arab Palestinians, should be return to Arab Palestinian Control so that may reconstitute forces and arsenals for yet another bid against Israel. The Arab Palestinians, like nearly every other nation that opens a conflict and defeated, should be exempt from War Reparations and Restitution for the cost of the conflict.

Pro-Arab Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians themselves, need international assistance so to avoid the customary practice of including payments or exchanges, in any treaty negotiation, intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war; as well as the custody of any Arab Palestinian wanted in connection with terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty does not have to be recognized; but it must be maintain as the supreme authority that claims sovereignty. Recognition is not a prerequisite. [Precedence: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) Article 3: The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.]

States exist as a person under law even if it lacks the power to exercise its rights. A state does not go out of existence because it is under military occupation.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

Palestine, originally a Roman name imposed on ancient Israel, later Britain’s name for the British Mandate, ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood

There is no state of palestine nor has one ever existed. A state of palestine, which Arabs cannot even write or say in Arabic, would be utterly laughable and illegitimate

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Occupied Territories Are the Biggest Prison on Earth
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne identifies that geography as:

ARTICLE 3.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.
​

In the time before the Politicizing the name "Palestine," the undefined territory was encapsulated in the typical description of Syria.

First, "Palestine, itself, was not a successor state. Palestine was the short title for the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine;" as stated in the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (Part I - Preliminaries, Paragraph 1: Title).

You are still talking about occupied territory. The rules changed when Palestine became a successor state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not create any country. And even if it did, the inhabitants of the former Enemy Occupied Territory Administration were NOT parties to the agreement. In fact, none of the other countries created out of the Mandate had the capacity to enforce any portion of the Treaty of the Agreement.

Israel is a successor state as of May 1948, by self-determination, in cooperation with the UN Palestine Commission and having completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence. Jordan was a successor nation as of 1946. In the case of Jordan, once part of the territory over which the Mandate for Palestine applied, was by treaty, made Independent.

Article 1, Treaty between Great Britain and Jordan 1946
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​

(REASON)

A cornerstones of In the Arab Palestinian Argument is that:

• The inhabitants of the region, later to become known as the Arab Palestinians, has some right to sovereignty over the territory; and they invoke the “right to self-determination” → including their demand for autonomy — or, in some cases, secession — and believe --- by default --- they have the right to resorted to violence to pursue their aims to disestablish the State of Israel.​

The democratic government and societies like Israel – with the freedom of expression and religion → is very different to that of its neighbors and presents a threat to the more or less autocratic secular and theocratic Arab governments in the Middle East which are still tribally and culturally constituted and in religious between various sects.

Most Respectfully,
R