All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[P F Tinmore]

Why Israeli Rule in the West Bank Is Legal under International Law

He bases his conclusion on false premise.

Oh, scholar.......do educate us all.

Give us the "true" premise.

Sure.
-------------------
From your link:
In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
----------------------
Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia
-----------------------
The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

You are full of it, as you keep bringing up what you have clearly, too many times, not understood about the Mandates and borders.

There were 4 mandates and all of them had borders.

Go play with your toys, now.

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders. They worked inside their respective territories but the territories were not theirs. They were merely trustees.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Why Israeli Rule in the West Bank Is Legal under International Law

He bases his conclusion on false premise.

Oh, scholar.......do educate us all.

Give us the "true" premise.

Sure.
-------------------
From your link:
In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
----------------------
Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia
-----------------------
The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

You are full of it, as you keep bringing up what you have clearly, too many times, not understood about the Mandates and borders.

There were 4 mandates and all of them had borders.

Go play with your toys, now.

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders. They worked inside their respective territories but the territories were not theirs. They were merely trustees.

You are playing your little worthless games about the Mandate again. Wrong thread.

Go play outside. It must be a sunny day someplace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

He bases his conclusion on false premise.

Oh, scholar.......do educate us all.

Give us the "true" premise.

Sure.
-------------------
From your link:
In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
----------------------
Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia
-----------------------
The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

You are full of it, as you keep bringing up what you have clearly, too many times, not understood about the Mandates and borders.

There were 4 mandates and all of them had borders.

Go play with your toys, now.

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders. They worked inside their respective territories but the territories were not theirs. They were merely trustees.

You are playing your little worthless games about the Mandate again. Wrong thread.

Go play outside. It must be a sunny day someplace.

You are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Post something to prove your point.

 

[rylah]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

 

[Sixties Fan]

Oh, scholar.......do educate us all.

Give us the "true" premise.

Sure.
-------------------
From your link:
In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
----------------------
Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia
-----------------------
The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

You are full of it, as you keep bringing up what you have clearly, too many times, not understood about the Mandates and borders.

There were 4 mandates and all of them had borders.

Go play with your toys, now.

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders. They worked inside their respective territories but the territories were not theirs. They were merely trustees.

You are playing your little worthless games about the Mandate again. Wrong thread.

Go play outside. It must be a sunny day someplace.

You are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Post something to prove your point.

The point has been proven again and again and again, but you are intent in continuing to play your game.

Nothing to post......repost your complaints about the mandate.

WRONG THREAD !!!!!

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

And we all know how Tinmore in going to reply to the video.

Wait....... 3......2.....1......

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

You said:

The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

And then you said:

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders.

(emphasis mine)

You've just defeated your own argument by insisting that the territories HAD borders. Indeed they did. Mr. Kontorovich's claim that a new country, absent a peace treaty, follows the existing borders of that territory, is correct.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

You said:

The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

And then you said:

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders.

(emphasis mine)

You've just defeated your own argument by insisting that the territories HAD borders. Indeed they did. Mr. Kontorovich's claim that a new country, absent a peace treaty, follows the existing borders of that territory, is correct.

That territory was not the territory of the Mandate.

 

[Sixties Fan]

P F Tinmore

You said:

The Mandate was not a place with territory and borders. It held the territory in trust in behalf of the native people.

And then you said:

The Mandates were assigned to territories that had borders.

(emphasis mine)

You've just defeated your own argument by insisting that the territories HAD borders. Indeed they did. Mr. Kontorovich's claim that a new country, absent a peace treaty, follows the existing borders of that territory, is correct.

That territory was not the territory of the Mandate.

It is Monday and you are bored. So, you need to claim that the Mandate for Palestine did not include the territory assigned to the Mandate for Palestine.

Geniiiuuuuusssss !!!!

 

[Shusha]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

 

[Shusha]

That territory was not the territory of the Mandate.

Wait, what?! What ARE you talking about?

Are you saying there are TWO DIFFERENT territories? With different borders?

 

[Sixties Fan]

In 1920, the Council of the League of Nations appointed Britain as the Mandatory entrusted with the administration of the Land of Israel. The borders of the land, as a separate country, were defined for the first time in many centuries. Until then, under the Ottoman Empire, the land's boundaries had not been defined because it was part of other large Ottoman districts like the district of Damascus and was not a distinct political unit. The term name "Palestine" that was chosen for this Mandate was based on the term name "Palestina" that was given to the country by the Roman Empire in the second century CE.

The territory of the British Mandate included land on both sides of the Jordan River, encompassing the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan. About 77% of this Mandate was east of the river Jordan River, and in 1921, Great Britain created there a separate administrative entity called Transjordan. The changed mandate took effect in 1923.




http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisra... of nations mandate for palestine - 1920.aspx

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

 

[Hollie]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

So, its back to your claim about a mythical "country of Pally'land" that was created by the treaty of Lausanne, that's always your go-to nonsense.

 

[Shusha]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

Quit being so obtuse. He states that the independent State for the Jewish homeland could have come into being at any time from 1920. Where is the self-contradiction and where is the contradiction with Kontorovich?

What ARE you trying to argue here? The territory HAD borders. Borders are normally transferred from one political entity to another with a change of sovereignty. Do you dispute that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

Quit being so obtuse. He states that the independent State for the Jewish homeland could have come into being at any time from 1920. Where is the self-contradiction and where is the contradiction with Kontorovich?

What ARE you trying to argue here? The territory HAD borders. Borders are normally transferred from one political entity to another with a change of sovereignty. Do you dispute that?

That is not what he was talking about.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

Quit being so obtuse. He states that the independent State for the Jewish homeland could have come into being at any time from 1920. Where is the self-contradiction and where is the contradiction with Kontorovich?

What ARE you trying to argue here? The territory HAD borders. Borders are normally transferred from one political entity to another with a change of sovereignty. Do you dispute that?

That is not what he was talking about.

As always, you are not discussing, you are just messing around.

He clearly states that the Jews would have had a State from 1920 to 1948, any time after 1920, had it not been for the British back stabbing the Jews with Article #6 by cutting down the Jewish right to immigrate into their own homeland.

Is there a problem with that? What is it?

What did you understand from 6 to 7:50 minutes into the video that you are bringing it up? Or let us say it, what is it that you did misunderstand about it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

This guy contradicts himself and Kontorovich.

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

Quit being so obtuse. He states that the independent State for the Jewish homeland could have come into being at any time from 1920. Where is the self-contradiction and where is the contradiction with Kontorovich?

What ARE you trying to argue here? The territory HAD borders. Borders are normally transferred from one political entity to another with a change of sovereignty. Do you dispute that?

That is not what he was talking about.

As always, you are not discussing, you are just messing around.

He clearly states that the Jews would have had a State from 1920 to 1948, any time after 1920, had it not been for the British back stabbing the Jews with Article #6 by cutting down the Jewish right to immigrate into their own homeland.

Is there a problem with that? What is it?

What did you understand from 6 to 7:50 minutes into the video that you are bringing it up? Or let us say it, what is it that you did misunderstand about it?

It is you who misunderstood what he said. He said that a condition had to be met. That condition was a Jewish majority. If Palestine was given to the Jews, why would this be important? If the Palestinians had no sovereignty in the land that should not make a difference. But it did.

After the Treaty of Lausenne, The Palestinians became the sovereigns and citizens of Palestine. If a representative government was established with the Jews in the minority there would not be a Jewish state. Britain had the Mandate for 30 years and never established a representative government for that reason. The plan was, through mass immigration, to pack Palestine with Jews and when they became the majority then a government could be established. This never happened. The plan failed and Britain left Palestine without establishing a government.

 

[Hollie]

Explain. Give ~time on video where this occurs.

Many times. What is he saying from 6:00 to 7:50 What is the significance?

Quit being so obtuse. He states that the independent State for the Jewish homeland could have come into being at any time from 1920. Where is the self-contradiction and where is the contradiction with Kontorovich?

What ARE you trying to argue here? The territory HAD borders. Borders are normally transferred from one political entity to another with a change of sovereignty. Do you dispute that?

That is not what he was talking about.

As always, you are not discussing, you are just messing around.

He clearly states that the Jews would have had a State from 1920 to 1948, any time after 1920, had it not been for the British back stabbing the Jews with Article #6 by cutting down the Jewish right to immigrate into their own homeland.

Is there a problem with that? What is it?

What did you understand from 6 to 7:50 minutes into the video that you are bringing it up? Or let us say it, what is it that you did misunderstand about it?

It is you who misunderstood what he said. He said that a condition had to be met. That condition was a Jewish majority. If Palestine was given to the Jews, why would this be important? If the Palestinians had no sovereignty in the land that should not make a difference. But it did.

After the Treaty of Lausenne, The Palestinians became the sovereigns and citizens of Palestine. If a representative government was established with the Jews in the minority there would not be a Jewish state. Britain had the Mandate for 30 years and never established a representative government for that reason. The plan was, through mass immigration, to pack Palestine with Jews and when they became the majority then a government could be established. This never happened. The plan failed and Britain left Palestine without establishing a government.

Link?

It was only a matter of time before you erroneously and falsely tried to connect the Treaty of Lausanne with creation of your invented “country of Pally’land”.

I suppose the last dozen times you failed to support that claim gives credence to another attempt.