Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And there it one of them. One of several key issues with the Palestinians.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...​

Indeed.

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

And even though recognition is not necessary Palestine was recognized by 5 other states and was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.

And the arab league government of gaza were told they could not declare on another persons land making the above link null and void as evidence of a Palestinian state prior to 1988. So it did not have the rights that Israel had, and have lost repeatedly every war they have started

And the arab league government of gaza were told they could not declare on another persons land...​

I assume you have a link to that.

The UN charter, the mandate of Palestine and UN res 181

I have read those.

You are full of crap.

NOPE that would be you as you don't even know what the mandate of Palestine says about the Jewish NATIONal home

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, yes I did.

Keep dancing, Rocco.

You did no answer the questions.

(COMMENT)

It is on the other side of the border barrier. It runs along the red lines in this map.

View attachment 50195

As stipulated in the Treaties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Those are armistice lines. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil,...​

Of course you can post the link that says that.

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners. There was no acquisition of land through force as the land had no sovereign owner and so was free for all. To the victor goes the spoils, which is why Israel/Jews lost land in 1949 as well

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners.​

Of course you have a link that says that.

I didn't think so.[/QUOTE]




Gave them in the UN charter, mandate of Palestine and res 181. Then there is res 242 that spells it out again if you read the authors description of what it means

 

[P F Tinmore]

(COMMENT)

It is on the other side of the border barrier. It runs along the red lines in this map.

View attachment 50195

As stipulated in the Treaties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Those are armistice lines. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil,...​

Of course you can post the link that says that.

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners. There was no acquisition of land through force as the land had no sovereign owner and so was free for all. To the victor goes the spoils, which is why Israel/Jews lost land in 1949 as well

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners.​

Of course you have a link that says that.

I didn't think so.

Gave them in the UN charter, mandate of Palestine and res 181. Then there is res 242 that spells it out again if you read the authors description of what it means

Of course you will not quote the passages because they are not there.

 

[Phoenall]

Those are armistice lines. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil,...​

Of course you can post the link that says that.

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners. There was no acquisition of land through force as the land had no sovereign owner and so was free for all. To the victor goes the spoils, which is why Israel/Jews lost land in 1949 as well

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners.​

Of course you have a link that says that.

I didn't think so.

Gave them in the UN charter, mandate of Palestine and res 181. Then there is res 242 that spells it out again if you read the authors description of what it means

Of course you will not quote the passages because they are not there.

Or because you ignore the parts that show the law did not change until after 1967, and that the land was not sovereign to anyone once the occupiers left.

 

[easyt65]

'WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?'


1ST: Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. there are significantly more non-Arab Muslims in areas such as Indonesia and Malaysia than there are Arab Muslims.

2ND: it is important to remember that not all Arabs hate Jews, not all Muslims hate Jews, and not all Jews hate Arabs and Muslims. We must be careful to avoid stereotyping people.


THE BIBLE AND OTHER SCRIPTURE TEACHES:
- The Jews are descendants of Abraham’s son Isaac.
- The Arabs are descendants of Abraham’s son Ishmael.

Abraham was promised a son by God. Fearing Sarah would not be able to give him a son he laid with a slave woman and had a son with her 1st. God then gave him and Sarah a child together, a boy named Isaac.

With Ishmael being the son of a slave woman (Genesis 16:1–16) and Isaac being the promised son who would inherit the blessings of Abraham (Genesis 21:1–3), obviously there would be some animosity between the two sons. As a result of Ishmael’s mocking Isaac (Genesis 21:9), Sarah talked Abraham into sending Hagar and Ishmael away (Genesis 21:11–21).This caused even more contempt in Ishmael’s heart toward Isaac. An angel told Hagar that Ishmael would be the father of a great nation (Genesis 21:18) and, interestingly, that Ishmael would be “a wild donkey of a man (aka ‘jackass’); his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers (especially the Jews – ancestry of Isaac))” (Genesis 16:12).

SOURCE OF HISTORICAL AND ON-GOING CONFLICT:
ARABS TEACH IT WAS ISHMAEL WHO WAS PROMISED ABRAHAM’S GREAT ‘INHERITANCE’ / BLESSING

However, the ancient root of bitterness between Isaac and Ishmael does not explain all of the hostility between Jews and Arabs today. The religion of Islam, which a majority of Arabs follow, has made the hostility predicted of Ishmael more profound. The Qur’an contains somewhat contradictory instructions for Muslims regarding Jews. At one point it instructs Muslims to treat Jews as brothers and at another point commands Muslims to attack Jews who refuse to convert to Islam. The Qur’an also introduces a conflict as to which son of Abraham was truly the son of promise. The Hebrew Scriptures say it was Isaac. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael whom Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (in contradiction to Genesis 22). This debate over who was the son of promise further contributes to today’s hostility.


IF THESE ARE TRUE, THE ISLAMIC CLAIM TO PALESTINE AND ISRAEL ARE FALSE / NOT VALID:
The Abrahamic Covenant was given only to Isaac and to his descendants. Ishmael and the other sons of Abraham were explicitly excluded by God from having any part of the covenant made with Abraham. (Gen. 18:18-21). Therefore the descendants of Ishmael and the other sons of Abraham do not have any claim to the land of Israel because they are not included in the covenant God made with Abraham. Only the Jews have any claim to the land of Israel.

The Arab people are not the children of Ishmael. Even if they were, they would still have no claim to Israel because Ishmael was excluded by God Himself from having any part in the covenant made with Abraham. Isaac was the only heir of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus the Arabs as a people have no claim to the land of Israel.

The Muslims have no claim to the land of Israel either. Muhammad never went to Jerusalem, AS THEY CLAIM, except in a dream. The only ones with a spiritual and biblical claim to the land of Israel are the descendants of Isaac, the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil,...​

Of course you can post the link that says that.

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners. There was no acquisition of land through force as the land had no sovereign owner and so was free for all. To the victor goes the spoils, which is why Israel/Jews lost land in 1949 as well

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners.​

Of course you have a link that says that.

I didn't think so.

Gave them in the UN charter, mandate of Palestine and res 181. Then there is res 242 that spells it out again if you read the authors description of what it means

Of course you will not quote the passages because they are not there.

Or because you ignore the parts that show the law did not change until after 1967, and that the land was not sovereign to anyone once the occupiers left.

The occupiers left what?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well --- not exactly.

Those are armistice lines. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties. The Arab Palestinians have no standing what-so-ever relative to the Armistice Agreements. When the treaties were signed, the Armistice Lines effectively went away.

For the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." (This superseded the SECRET temporary Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975.)

For the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved,"
​

The Armistice Lines have long since become just a matter of historical reference. Nothing prevents Israel from using, adjusting, revising or amending the inactive Armistice Lines for borders they control.

We went over this in May of last year.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well --- not exactly.

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties. The Arab Palestinians have no standing what-so-ever relative to the Armistice Agreements. When the treaties were signed, the Armistice Lines effectively went away.

For the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." (This superseded the SECRET temporary Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975.)

For the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved,"
​

The Armistice Lines have long since become just a matter of historical reference. Nothing prevents Israel from using, adjusting, revising or amending the inactive Armistice Lines for borders they control.

We went over this in May of last year.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

I say that Israel took land by conquest which is illegal.

What do you say?

 

[Phoenall]

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil,...​

Of course you can post the link that says that.

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners. There was no acquisition of land through force as the land had no sovereign owner and so was free for all. To the victor goes the spoils, which is why Israel/Jews lost land in 1949 as well

UN charter, mandate of Palestine and UN res 181. The land became free when the Palestinians refused to take up 181 as it had no sovereign owners.​

Of course you have a link that says that.

I didn't think so.

Gave them in the UN charter, mandate of Palestine and res 181. Then there is res 242 that spells it out again if you read the authors description of what it means

Of course you will not quote the passages because they are not there.

Or because you ignore the parts that show the law did not change until after 1967, and that the land was not sovereign to anyone once the occupiers left.

The occupiers left what?

Gaza and the west bank of course when they attacked Israel in 1967 and were driven back to the other side of the nearest water course.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well --- not exactly.

(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties. The Arab Palestinians have no standing what-so-ever relative to the Armistice Agreements. When the treaties were signed, the Armistice Lines effectively went away.

For the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." (This superseded the SECRET temporary Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975.)

For the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved,"
​

The Armistice Lines have long since become just a matter of historical reference. Nothing prevents Israel from using, adjusting, revising or amending the inactive Armistice Lines for borders they control.

We went over this in May of last year.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

I say that Israel took land by conquest which is illegal.

What do you say?

That you are trying to use a law that did not exist at the time to attack Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well --- not exactly.

As the rules say it Israel controls the area then it is Israeli soil, and seeing as they held in from 1967 to 1988 then the Palestinians have lost all but the land on their side of the red line

(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties. The Arab Palestinians have no standing what-so-ever relative to the Armistice Agreements. When the treaties were signed, the Armistice Lines effectively went away.

For the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." (This superseded the SECRET temporary Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975.)

For the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved,"
​

The Armistice Lines have long since become just a matter of historical reference. Nothing prevents Israel from using, adjusting, revising or amending the inactive Armistice Lines for borders they control.

We went over this in May of last year.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

A view on Oslo:

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50 Corruption Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
A State or an international organization the expression of whose consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
The expression by a State or an international organization of consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative of that State or that organization through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52 Coercion Of A State Or Of An International Organization By The Threat Or Use Of Force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Chatter of the United Nations.

Article 53 Treaties Conflicting With A Peremptory Norm Of General International Law (Jus Cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - Treaty Law​

I am sure that more that one of those apply.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well --- not exactly.

(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties. The Arab Palestinians have no standing what-so-ever relative to the Armistice Agreements. When the treaties were signed, the Armistice Lines effectively went away.

For the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." (This superseded the SECRET temporary Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975.)

For the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved,"
​

The Armistice Lines have long since become just a matter of historical reference. Nothing prevents Israel from using, adjusting, revising or amending the inactive Armistice Lines for borders they control.

We went over this in May of last year.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

A view on Oslo:

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50 Corruption Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
A State or an international organization the expression of whose consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
The expression by a State or an international organization of consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative of that State or that organization through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52 Coercion Of A State Or Of An International Organization By The Threat Or Use Of Force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Chatter of the United Nations.

Article 53 Treaties Conflicting With A Peremptory Norm Of General International Law (Jus Cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - Treaty Law​

I am sure that more that one of those apply.

I am 100% certain that they don't as Arafat entered into negotiations of his own free will and was not forced to accede to any of the terms.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

A view on Oslo:

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50 Corruption Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
A State or an international organization the expression of whose consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
The expression by a State or an international organization of consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative of that State or that organization through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52 Coercion Of A State Or Of An International Organization By The Threat Or Use Of Force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Chatter of the United Nations.

Article 53 Treaties Conflicting With A Peremptory Norm Of General International Law (Jus Cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - Treaty Law​

I am sure that more that one of those apply.

I am 100% certain that they don't as Arafat entered into negotiations of his own free will and was not forced to accede to any of the terms.

Israel dragged Arafat (a terrorist) and the PLO (a terrorist organization) back to Palestine and saved them from extinction.

I am sure that benevolence was not part of Israel's plan.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

A view on Oslo:

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50 Corruption Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
A State or an international organization the expression of whose consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
The expression by a State or an international organization of consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative of that State or that organization through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52 Coercion Of A State Or Of An International Organization By The Threat Or Use Of Force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Chatter of the United Nations.

Article 53 Treaties Conflicting With A Peremptory Norm Of General International Law (Jus Cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - Treaty Law​

I am sure that more that one of those apply.

I am 100% certain that they don't as Arafat entered into negotiations of his own free will and was not forced to accede to any of the terms.

Israel dragged Arafat (a terrorist) and the PLO (a terrorist organization) back to Palestine and saved them from extinction.

I am sure that benevolence was not part of Israel's plan.

How about a link proving this fantasy claim of yours, it must include Israel dragging Arafat and the PLO back to Palestine. But seeing as the deal was struck thousands of miles away I guess you wont be able to.

Looks like another of your claims has been proven wrong and you proven to be a fantasist

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the Convention on Treaties does have an applications to the Oslo Accords. That much we agree on. But I have never heard President Mahmoud Abbas, who in 1993 was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator and signed the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" (AKA: Oslo I), even suggest that the proceeding were fraudulent or coerced, or accuse Israel of corrupting the process, or coercing the PLO (or himself) in any way. Nor has President Mahmoud Abbas charged or complained that Oslo I conflicts with any peremptory norm of general international law to the detriment of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian People. Nor have we heard from President Mahmoud Abbas that the sole representative of the Palestinian People (himself --- representing their interests) was subject to some measure of force or lacking the competence to enter into such a negotiation or that the PLO was forced to renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace.

In fact, President Mahmoud Abbas did not suggest then and does not claim now that he or the PLO were subject to any military, political, economic pressures, or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of the Palestinian People.

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

Well --- not exactly.
(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties. The Arab Palestinians have no standing what-so-ever relative to the Armistice Agreements. When the treaties were signed, the Armistice Lines effectively went away.

For the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved." (This superseded the SECRET temporary Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel of September 1975.)

For the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, Article XII says: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved,"
​

The Armistice Lines have long since become just a matter of historical reference. Nothing prevents Israel from using, adjusting, revising or amending the inactive Armistice Lines for borders they control.

We went over this in May of last year.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

A view on Oslo:

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50 Corruption Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
A State or an international organization the expression of whose consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
The expression by a State or an international organization of consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative of that State or that organization through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52 Coercion Of A State Or Of An International Organization By The Threat Or Use Of Force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Chatter of the United Nations.

Article 53 Treaties Conflicting With A Peremptory Norm Of General International Law (Jus Cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - Treaty Law​

I am sure that more that one of those apply.

(COMMENT)

You may be sure that one of these prohibitions apply, but I do not --- now, nor have I ever --- had knowledge of a credible accusation, supported by a reasonable source, suggesting that some inappropriate pressure or activity was brought upon President Mahmoud Abbas or the PLO that would have invalidated the Oslo Accord process.

Do you have such knowledge or evidence, or even a credible report of evidence from a first-hand source --- other than hearsay?

I would be most appreciative if you would enlighten me.

‘Abbas’s UN speech won’t announce end of PA’
Israeli official says European diplomats were told Palestinian Authority president won’t terminate Oslo Accords
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF September 21, 2015,

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last week told European diplomats that, contrary to rumors in the Arab press, he wouldn’t announce the dismantlement of the PA or annulment of the 1993 Oslo Accords in an upcoming UN General Assembly speech, Haaretz quoted an Israeli official saying Sunday.
---
Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority administers civil and security control over the West Bank’s major cities, which are delineated Area A. Area B is under PA civil control, but is under joint security control with Israel, and Area C — the bulk of the West Bank, is under Israeli control.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

'WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?'


1ST: Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. there are significantly more non-Arab Muslims in areas such as Indonesia and Malaysia than there are Arab Muslims.

2ND: it is important to remember that not all Arabs hate Jews, not all Muslims hate Jews, and not all Jews hate Arabs and Muslims. We must be careful to avoid stereotyping people.


THE BIBLE AND OTHER SCRIPTURE TEACHES:
- The Jews are descendants of Abraham’s son Isaac.
- The Arabs are descendants of Abraham’s son Ishmael.

Abraham was promised a son by God. Fearing Sarah would not be able to give him a son he laid with a slave woman and had a son with her 1st. God then gave him and Sarah a child together, a boy named Isaac.

With Ishmael being the son of a slave woman (Genesis 16:1–16) and Isaac being the promised son who would inherit the blessings of Abraham (Genesis 21:1–3), obviously there would be some animosity between the two sons. As a result of Ishmael’s mocking Isaac (Genesis 21:9), Sarah talked Abraham into sending Hagar and Ishmael away (Genesis 21:11–21).This caused even more contempt in Ishmael’s heart toward Isaac. An angel told Hagar that Ishmael would be the father of a great nation (Genesis 21:18) and, interestingly, that Ishmael would be “a wild donkey of a man (aka ‘jackass’); his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers (especially the Jews – ancestry of Isaac))” (Genesis 16:12).

SOURCE OF HISTORICAL AND ON-GOING CONFLICT:
ARABS TEACH IT WAS ISHMAEL WHO WAS PROMISED ABRAHAM’S GREAT ‘INHERITANCE’ / BLESSING

However, the ancient root of bitterness between Isaac and Ishmael does not explain all of the hostility between Jews and Arabs today. The religion of Islam, which a majority of Arabs follow, has made the hostility predicted of Ishmael more profound. The Qur’an contains somewhat contradictory instructions for Muslims regarding Jews. At one point it instructs Muslims to treat Jews as brothers and at another point commands Muslims to attack Jews who refuse to convert to Islam. The Qur’an also introduces a conflict as to which son of Abraham was truly the son of promise. The Hebrew Scriptures say it was Isaac. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael whom Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (in contradiction to Genesis 22). This debate over who was the son of promise further contributes to today’s hostility.


IF THESE ARE TRUE, THE ISLAMIC CLAIM TO PALESTINE AND ISRAEL ARE FALSE / NOT VALID:
The Abrahamic Covenant was given only to Isaac and to his descendants. Ishmael and the other sons of Abraham were explicitly excluded by God from having any part of the covenant made with Abraham. (Gen. 18:18-21). Therefore the descendants of Ishmael and the other sons of Abraham do not have any claim to the land of Israel because they are not included in the covenant God made with Abraham. Only the Jews have any claim to the land of Israel.

The Arab people are not the children of Ishmael. Even if they were, they would still have no claim to Israel because Ishmael was excluded by God Himself from having any part in the covenant made with Abraham. Isaac was the only heir of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus the Arabs as a people have no claim to the land of Israel.

The Muslims have no claim to the land of Israel either. Muhammad never went to Jerusalem, AS THEY CLAIM, except in a dream. The only ones with a spiritual and biblical claim to the land of Israel are the descendants of Isaac, the Jews.

It doesn't say "wild donkey of a man' but simply "wild man..." originally.

 

[docmauser1]

How ignorant you are,the Palestinians a warrior tribe have been in Palestine for thousands of years, ...

Palistanians are a bunch of arab settlers from the hood, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

P F Tinmore, et al,
There is something else I read that gives more specifics on it. I believe it had something to do with the agreed upon Armistice Lines (Island of Rhodes). I'm still looking for it.

I know it has been recognized as absorbed. But I don't know the particulars.​

​

(COMMENT)
The only link I can supply for the moment is the recognition the PLO gave to the condition.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background --- PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department

"On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​

I'm still looking.
Most Respectfully,
R

And how does that palistanian department define "historic"? They're a pretty wayward lot when dates and time-frames are concerned.

Israel as a country a gift to jewish because of Jewish support against Germany in WII and that support followed by divide the region in many countries so Israel can be place there and also armed and army support to Israel against Arab nation.

Drivel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the Convention on Treaties does have an applications to the Oslo Accords. That much we agree on. But I have never heard President Mahmoud Abbas, who in 1993 was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator and signed the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" (AKA: Oslo I), even suggest that the proceeding were fraudulent or coerced, or accuse Israel of corrupting the process, or coercing the PLO (or himself) in any way. Nor has President Mahmoud Abbas charged or complained that Oslo I conflicts with any peremptory norm of general international law to the detriment of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian People. Nor have we heard from President Mahmoud Abbas that the sole representative of the Palestinian People (himself --- representing their interests) was subject to some measure of force or lacking the competence to enter into such a negotiation or that the PLO was forced to renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace.

In fact, President Mahmoud Abbas did not suggest then and does not claim now that he or the PLO were subject to any military, political, economic pressures, or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of the Palestinian People.

You don't pay attention. A treaty is but only ONE of several ways that territorial sovereignty may be arrived at. We've gone over several different interpretations of those recognized ways.

An Armistice Line, by the Armistice Agreement is not a permanent border. But the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and Egypt is no more; having been replaced by Treaties.​

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

WRONG as Israel has imposed borders prior to the existence of the Palestinian state and they are legal until such a time as the Palestinians keep their promise to negotiate mutual borders.

Borders are not imposed. They are arrived to be treaty.

The Palestinians do not need to change their borders.

(COMMENT)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Armistice Agreements (Article XII) stipulated that the agreed upon method would be by Peace Treaty (outlined in the posting above). Egypt and Jordan both made such Treaties. There was no Armistice Agreement with the Palestinians, as they were represented by the Arab League. Thus, any method is open.

Methods of Acquiring Territorial Soveignty include, but are not limited to:

• Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
• Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
• Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
• Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
• Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such as in the Netherlands.
• Adjudication and
• Conquest
​

While there are certainly arguments to be made concerning the international legitimacy of a couple of these modes (Occupation and Conquest as examples), they have all been used right up to the present day; including Occupation and Conquest.

In the case of the dispute with the Palestinians, the Oslo I (Article V --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) and Oslo II (XII --- responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders; --- For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank - the settlements in Area C)(Article XXXI --- Permanent status negotiations - security arrangements, borders) are the operable factors.

The State of Palestine has no fixed borders with Israel, that Israel does not maintain and enforce; which are --- for all practical and realistic purposes, are recognized by every nation within or operating around in the region; to include the Arab League Nations. Whether or not they agree that these are permanent boundaries, except those established by treaty with Jordan and Egypt, is inconsequential. Every nation within or operating around in the region, to include the Arab League Nations, recognize the physical controls and political limitations --- and --- abide by the border requirements and protections established by Israel.

The means of dispute resolution are defined in Article XV of the Oslo I Agreement --- and --- Article XXI of the Oslo II Agreement. The Palestinians have essentially agreed to abide by the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. This includes refraining from the threats or use of force as a means of solving territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

A view on Oslo:

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50 Corruption Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
A State or an international organization the expression of whose consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion Of A Representative Of A State Or Of An International Organization
The expression by a State or an international organization of consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative of that State or that organization through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52 Coercion Of A State Or Of An International Organization By The Threat Or Use Of Force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Chatter of the United Nations.

Article 53 Treaties Conflicting With A Peremptory Norm Of General International Law (Jus Cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - Treaty Law​

I am sure that more that one of those apply.

(COMMENT)

You may be sure that one of these prohibitions apply, but I do not --- now, nor have I ever --- had knowledge of a credible accusation, supported by a reasonable source, suggesting that some inappropriate pressure or activity was brought upon President Mahmoud Abbas or the PLO that would have invalidated the Oslo Accord process.

Do you have such knowledge or evidence, or even a credible report of evidence from a first-hand source --- other than hearsay?

I would be most appreciative if you would enlighten me.

‘Abbas’s UN speech won’t announce end of PA’
Israeli official says European diplomats were told Palestinian Authority president won’t terminate Oslo Accords
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF September 21, 2015,

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last week told European diplomats that, contrary to rumors in the Arab press, he wouldn’t announce the dismantlement of the PA or annulment of the 1993 Oslo Accords in an upcoming UN General Assembly speech, Haaretz quoted an Israeli official saying Sunday.
---
Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority administers civil and security control over the West Bank’s major cities, which are delineated Area A. Area B is under PA civil control, but is under joint security control with Israel, and Area C — the bulk of the West Bank, is under Israeli control.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

You spend too much time on Abbas.

He left the government in June of 2007.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Laila El Haddad