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

[Shusha]

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Why not? How can Israel be expected to unilaterally "end the occupation" if no one can define "the occupation"?

You seem to be proving the point of the article.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Why not? How can Israel be expected to unilaterally "end the occupation" if no one can define "the occupation"?

You seem to be proving the point of the article.

But which view is correct? Israel does not want that debate.

What is your view and can you provide any evidence to back up your point?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It has been a long-standing question as to whether an occupying power (in this case Israel) → initially gained lawful occupation authority → and then transitioned into illegality an illegal status.

In terms of the West Bank, Israel gained lawful effective control in 1967 from the Hashemite Kingdom. In 1988, when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank, Israel was the ONLY sovereign power exercising control over the politically abandon territory.

In 1995, with hostilities concluded and peace initiated through a treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Green Line dissolved under the terms of the Armistice.

Since that time, the Arab Palestinians have not exercised any sovereign control except as agreed upon by the Oslo Accords (that would be Area "A").

sovereignty ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished
from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.
Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of
supreme authority within a State.
...

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

(COMMENT)

Nowhere is there a word in the Lexicon that describes the situation in which we find the Israelis lock in conflict with the Arab Palestinians.

What we do know is that at no point have the Arab Palestinians been the bearer of supreme authority within the disputed territory (except for Area "A").

Simplified is:

sovereign. N. A ruler; a monarch or king; the supreme authority of a country. ADJ. sovereign.

sovereign state. N. A state or nation that governs itself and is not subject to the authority of any other state or nation.

sovereignty. N. The power by which a government rules its state or nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Ending the occupation

By focusing only on “ending the occupation,” without examining the reasons for Israel’s refusal to accept an Arab Palestinian state and the probable consequences of giving in to these demands, anti-Israel activists have diverted attention from the real problems: the threat to Israel and the danger of a failed state.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means and how its removal will be implemented. For example, to what does “occupied” refer?

The most effective response to someone who demands to “end the occupation” is to ask, simply: “Where? How? What will happen afterward?”

As a mantra, therefore, “end the occupation” is meaningless nonsense. ... As most Arabs and Muslims see it, however, “ending the occupation” does not mean ending the conflict; it means moving to the next level of confrontation – and that will be far more deadly than what now exists.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Discussion with those holding a politico-religious ideology that creates the Hamas charter has certain preconditions.

 

[Sixties Fan]

NGO accuses Israel of systematically killing Palestinian prisoners. Its own statistics show the opposite. ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It has been a long-standing question as to whether an occupying power (in this case Israel) → initially gained lawful occupation authority → and then transitioned into illegality an illegal status.

In terms of the West Bank, Israel gained lawful effective control in 1967 from the Hashemite Kingdom. In 1988, when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank, Israel was the ONLY sovereign power exercising control over the politically abandon territory.

In 1995, with hostilities concluded and peace initiated through a treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Green Line dissolved under the terms of the Armistice.

Since that time, the Arab Palestinians have not exercised any sovereign control except as agreed upon by the Oslo Accords (that would be Area "A").

sovereignty ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished
from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.
Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of
supreme authority within a State.
...

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

(COMMENT)

Nowhere is there a word in the Lexicon that describes the situation in which we find the Israelis lock in conflict with the Arab Palestinians.

What we do know is that at no point have the Arab Palestinians been the bearer of supreme authority within the disputed territory (except for Area "A").

Simplified is:

sovereign. N. A ruler; a monarch or king; the supreme authority of a country. ADJ. sovereign.

sovereign state. N. A state or nation that governs itself and is not subject to the authority of any other state or nation.

sovereignty. N. The power by which a government rules its state or nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

In terms of the West Bank, Israel gained lawful effective control in 1967 from the Hashemite Kingdom.

Your daily clunker. Jordan occupied the West Bank.

Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ending the occupation

By focusing only on “ending the occupation,” without examining the reasons for Israel’s refusal to accept an Arab Palestinian state and the probable consequences of giving in to these demands, anti-Israel activists have diverted attention from the real problems: the threat to Israel and the danger of a failed state.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means and how its removal will be implemented. For example, to what does “occupied” refer?

The most effective response to someone who demands to “end the occupation” is to ask, simply: “Where? How? What will happen afterward?”

As a mantra, therefore, “end the occupation” is meaningless nonsense. ... As most Arabs and Muslims see it, however, “ending the occupation” does not mean ending the conflict; it means moving to the next level of confrontation – and that will be far more deadly than what now exists.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Discussion with those holding a politico-religious ideology that creates the Hamas charter has certain preconditions.

Deflecting off onto Israel's boogyman again?

 

[Hollie]

Ending the occupation

By focusing only on “ending the occupation,” without examining the reasons for Israel’s refusal to accept an Arab Palestinian state and the probable consequences of giving in to these demands, anti-Israel activists have diverted attention from the real problems: the threat to Israel and the danger of a failed state.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means and how its removal will be implemented. For example, to what does “occupied” refer?

The most effective response to someone who demands to “end the occupation” is to ask, simply: “Where? How? What will happen afterward?”

As a mantra, therefore, “end the occupation” is meaningless nonsense. ... As most Arabs and Muslims see it, however, “ending the occupation” does not mean ending the conflict; it means moving to the next level of confrontation – and that will be far more deadly than what now exists.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Discussion with those holding a politico-religious ideology that creates the Hamas charter has certain preconditions.

Deflecting off onto Israel's boogyman again?

You are unwilling to acknowledge that the goals of the Hamas charter have not changed.

You plead ignorance on these topics as though doing so means you can always remain ignorant.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ending the occupation

By focusing only on “ending the occupation,” without examining the reasons for Israel’s refusal to accept an Arab Palestinian state and the probable consequences of giving in to these demands, anti-Israel activists have diverted attention from the real problems: the threat to Israel and the danger of a failed state.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means and how its removal will be implemented. For example, to what does “occupied” refer?

The most effective response to someone who demands to “end the occupation” is to ask, simply: “Where? How? What will happen afterward?”

As a mantra, therefore, “end the occupation” is meaningless nonsense. ... As most Arabs and Muslims see it, however, “ending the occupation” does not mean ending the conflict; it means moving to the next level of confrontation – and that will be far more deadly than what now exists.

THERE IS no coherent attempt, however, to define what “occupied” means

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Discussion with those holding a politico-religious ideology that creates the Hamas charter has certain preconditions.

Deflecting off onto Israel's boogyman again?

You are unwilling to acknowledge that the goals of the Hamas charter have not changed.

You plead ignorance on these topics as though doing so means you can always remain ignorant.

They should call it the Israeli charter. They are the only ones who use it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ More Israeli Apartheid ]

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ And more.....]

 

[Shusha]

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Why not? How can Israel be expected to unilaterally "end the occupation" if no one can define "the occupation"?

You seem to be proving the point of the article.

But which view is correct? Israel does not want that debate.

What is your view and can you provide any evidence to back up your point?

I contend that it impossible for Israel to “end the occupation” because there are no circumstances under which the Arab Palestinians will consider the “occupation” ended (while Israel exists).

Agree or disagree?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Why not? How can Israel be expected to unilaterally "end the occupation" if no one can define "the occupation"?

You seem to be proving the point of the article.

But which view is correct? Israel does not want that debate.

What is your view and can you provide any evidence to back up your point?

I contend that it impossible for Israel to “end the occupation” because there are no circumstances under which the Arab Palestinians will consider the “occupation” ended (while Israel exists).

Agree or disagree?

Well, the Palestinians say that all of Palestine is occupied.

I haven't seen anything showing that to be incorrect.

 

[Hollie]

There are different views on that but it is a discussion that cannot be had.

Why not? How can Israel be expected to unilaterally "end the occupation" if no one can define "the occupation"?

You seem to be proving the point of the article.

But which view is correct? Israel does not want that debate.

What is your view and can you provide any evidence to back up your point?

I contend that it impossible for Israel to “end the occupation” because there are no circumstances under which the Arab Palestinians will consider the “occupation” ended (while Israel exists).

Agree or disagree?

Well, the Palestinians say that all of Palestine is occupied.

I haven't seen anything showing that to be incorrect.

So... by Pal'istanians, you mean Arabs-Moslems who occupied a territory under the control of the former Ottoman Empire which relinquished all rights and title to the area?

You're arguing squatters rights.

 

[Shusha]

I haven't seen anything showing that to be incorrect.

Oh, of course you have. You, like the Arab Palestinians, refuse to acknowledge the plain reality in front of your face.

Well, the Palestinians say that all of Palestine is occupied.

Yes. So we agree that discussion of "ending the occupation" or "free Palestine" is senseless. It would be impossible to accomplish without dismantling Israel.

Do you see how this creates an existential problem for Israel: a literal fight for survival. And one with no possible alternative outcome other than annihilation for one side or the other, at least according to the Arab Palestinians?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Points here:

◈ I don't have to defend by statement because my statement made no mention as to the nature of the Hashemite Kingdom's control.

◈ At the time (1967), the conflict of (what is often called) the Six-Day War was actually the breaking of the Armistice and reopening hostilities of 1948.​

In terms of the West Bank, Israel gained lawful effective control in 1967 from the Hashemite Kingdom.

Your daily clunker. Jordan occupied the West Bank.
Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

No matter what the nature of the control that the Hashemite Kingdom exercised over the West Bank, does not change the fact that Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had control and exercised control over the West Bank to the exclusion of all others.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I haven't seen anything showing that to be incorrect.

Oh, of course you have. You, like the Arab Palestinians, refuse to acknowledge the plain reality in front of your face.

Well, the Palestinians say that all of Palestine is occupied.

Yes. So we agree that discussion of "ending the occupation" or "free Palestine" is senseless. It would be impossible to accomplish without dismantling Israel.

Do you see how this creates an existential problem for Israel: a literal fight for survival. And one with no possible alternative outcome other than annihilation for one side or the other, at least according to the Arab Palestinians?

Indeed, Israel has created quite a problem for itself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Points here:

◈ I don't have to defend by statement because my statement made no mention as to the nature of the Hashemite Kingdom's control.

◈ At the time (1967), the conflict of (what is often called) the Six-Day War was actually the breaking of the Armistice and reopening hostilities of 1948.​

In terms of the West Bank, Israel gained lawful effective control in 1967 from the Hashemite Kingdom.

Your daily clunker. Jordan occupied the West Bank.
Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

No matter what the nature of the control that the Hashemite Kingdom exercised over the West Bank, does not change the fact that Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had control and exercised control over the West Bank to the exclusion of all others.


Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan had no sovereignty over the West Bank. It was not theirs to lose or give away.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Points here:

◈ I don't have to defend by statement because my statement made no mention as to the nature of the Hashemite Kingdom's control.

◈ At the time (1967), the conflict of (what is often called) the Six-Day War was actually the breaking of the Armistice and reopening hostilities of 1948.​

In terms of the West Bank, Israel gained lawful effective control in 1967 from the Hashemite Kingdom.

Your daily clunker. Jordan occupied the West Bank.
Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

No matter what the nature of the control that the Hashemite Kingdom exercised over the West Bank, does not change the fact that Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had control and exercised control over the West Bank to the exclusion of all others.


Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan had no sovereignty over the West Bank. It was not theirs to lose or give away.

Indeed, your invented version of history.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You don't understand.

Jordan had no sovereignty over the West Bank. It was not theirs to lose or give away.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not you believe (or anyone believes) the Hashemite Kingdom had the authority or not, how did they actually perform?

territorial sovereignty ❖ This is an aspect of sovereignty, connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty. It is the ‘principle of the exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory . . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.

Since when have the Arab Palestinians maintain "competence of the State in regard to its own territory?" And what territory was this sovereignty "delimited in space?"

Most Respectfully,
R