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

[MartyNYC]

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

BLUF: Unfortunately, the criteria fuse for the territory to be "considered under occupation" does not include ancient history. But neither does it take into account the habitual inhabitants.

​

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

(SOURCE LINK)​

​

​

Israeli occupation forces dismantle and confiscate residential tents and sheep barns, displacing Palestinian families in al-Mughayyir village near Ramallah.

”Palestine“ was a Roman name for ancient Israel, imposed by the “occupying” Roman Empire. Israel does not occupy anyone. Jews, historically, were the first “palestinians.”

(COMMENT)

The importance of this fact rests with the timeline of events.

View attachment 346008
​

As you can see, Israel is the sovereign nation that has had effective control over the territory continuously since 1967. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem effective 31 July 1988. That the Occupying Power having control. The PLO had NOT declared independence until well after the Arab political abandonment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan seized in the ‘48 War what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish names. Jordan “occupied” the lands, renaming them “west bank“ (of the Jordan River). It’s noteworthy that Jordan didn’t name the lands “palestine.”

Additionally, it‘s noteworthy that neither Jordan nor Egypt which seized Gaza created a “palestinian“ state—No such people were recognized as existing.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan was an occupation. It was not the sovereign of the territory. It was occupied Palestinian territory.

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948​

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

​

Indeed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Update on the Deadly Exchange Campaign from Jewish Voice for Peace

As a group of multiracial Jews and allies who have been working to end U.S.-Israel law enforcement exchange programs through our Deadly Exchange campaign, we’ve seen a lot of people in this moment who might be noticing the issues it addresses for the first time. We offer this guide as an explainer and backgrounder.

Update on the Deadly Exchange campaign by JVP

Let’s bring everything we have to this moment.

jewishvoiceforpeace.org

 

[MartyNYC]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan was an occupation. It was not the sovereign of the territory. It was occupied Palestinian territory.

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948​

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

​

Indeed.

Palestine, Britain’s name for the British Mandate, formed specifically to implement the Balfour Declaration that led to Israeli statehood, ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood.

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan was an occupation. It was not the sovereign of the territory. It was occupied Palestinian territory.

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948​

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

​

Indeed.

An opinion.


Indeed.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I thought you would dig this out of the trash.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948​

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

​

Indeed.

(COMMENT)

This is the case of asking for the absorption of an independent state. And you have wrapped yourself in a cocoon of self-deception, an invalid belief that the Arab Palestinians were denied an award for their lack of political cooperation and out-right rejections for a number of opportunities.

This is asking for too much, too late, and not through the same process. This is a rabble of former enemy officers being the puppet for the Egyptian Military Governorship. It was generally understood that the "All Palestine Government" was conjuring to create a state that would have been de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power (Egypt); subject to the will of the outside power (Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian Freedom meets Black Lives Matter

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestinian Freedom meets Black Lives Matter

Whiney losers stick together.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: I thought you would dig this out of the trash.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948​

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

​

Indeed.

(COMMENT)

This is the case of asking for the absorption of an independent state. And you have wrapped yourself in a cocoon of self-deception, an invalid belief that the Arab Palestinians were denied an award for their lack of political cooperation and out-right rejections for a number of opportunities.

This is asking for too much, too late, and not through the same process. This is a rabble of former enemy officers being the puppet for the Egyptian Military Governorship. It was generally understood that the "All Palestine Government" was conjuring to create a state that would have been de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power (Egypt); subject to the will of the outside power (Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is this not a valid declaration?

 

[MartyNYC]

Palestinian Freedom meets Black Lives Matter

Arabs in Israel: In Israel we are free. “Peaceful and beautiful.” We do not want to live under “palestinian” rule!

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: I thought you would dig this out of the trash.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT​

28 September 1948​

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​

​

Indeed.

(COMMENT)

This is the case of asking for the absorption of an independent state. And you have wrapped yourself in a cocoon of self-deception, an invalid belief that the Arab Palestinians were denied an award for their lack of political cooperation and out-right rejections for a number of opportunities.

This is asking for too much, too late, and not through the same process. This is a rabble of former enemy officers being the puppet for the Egyptian Military Governorship. It was generally understood that the "All Palestine Government" was conjuring to create a state that would have been de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power (Egypt); subject to the will of the outside power (Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is this not a valid declaration?

Why do you think it is?

Indeed, why do you call it a declaration?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: The All Palestine Government (APG) was seen as merely political maneuvering and symbolic in nature.

Why is this not a valid declaration?

(COMMENT)

The APG had it had no administration, no civil service, no money, and had no sovereign territory of its own to defend.

Against Jordanian advice, the APG re-activated what it could of the Holy War Army. It was not a defense force but specifically tasked to liberate the whole of Palestine (an offensive mission objective). That would obstruct the framework of the Armistice Agreements (with Egypt and Jordan).

The Jordanian Ministry of Defense (MOD) immediately ordered that the Holy War Army, and any similar band of armed APG affiliates to be disbanded. This LTG Glubb Pasha was more than happy to do.

In addition to the issue of territorial sovereignty, there arose the question of sovereign rule on it own right. The APG was totally reliant upon the Military Governorship. Legislative Council of the APG that could pass laws, first had to get approval from the High Administrator-General (Egyptian Military Governorship).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession,

Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1967 occupation?
Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1948 occupation?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Against Jordanian advice, the APG re-activated what it could of the Holy War Army. It was not a defense force but specifically tasked to liberate the whole of Palestine (an offensive mission objective).

Liberation is offensive? Rocco, you are a hoot.

Who writes this shit for you?

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession,

Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1967 occupation?
Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1948 occupation?

"Peaceful'' Arab wars of 1948 and 1967.

 

[MartyNYC]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession,

Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1967 occupation?
Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1948 occupation?

Arabs occupying Jews’ land, historically and internationally known as Judea and Samaria, Jewish names dating back thousands of years. “Jew” comes from “Judea.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

The APG had it had no administration, no civil service, no money, and had no sovereign territory of its own to defend.

The Palestinians declared independence on their own land, inside their own international borders. That the territory was crawling with foreign troops does not matter. Those troops had no sovereignty.

ARTICLE 3​

​

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,...

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

The idea that you can negate a peoples' rights by military force is unfounded in international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: I think this is a case of very shallow thought.

effective control

Effective control is a term defining occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, "occupation" includes the necessary condition of "Effective Control." But not all situations involving "Effective Control" are an "occupation." "Effective Control" is not unique to an "Occupation."

It is correct to say that once territory comes under the "effective control" of a "foreign armed forces" (Article 42, HR) the laws on occupation are applicable. It is also correct to say that Israel is is bound by the Law of Occupation (Article 43, HR) wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of formerly under the sovereign control of the Hashemite Kingdom, without the consent of the Jordanian State.

Now, the conditions arise:

◈ The West Bank and Jerusalem were, between 1950 and 1967, Jordanian sovereign territory. It does not matter if the International Community recognizes or not. The Law under the Convention on Rights and Duties of States says:​

​

✦ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.​

✦ The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.​

​

◈ Now, between 1967 and the end of July 1988, the West Bank and Jerusalem was under the Occupation of a foreign Army, namely Israel. But on 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan officially declared a Disengagement from the West Bank.​

​

◈ Once the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory, the Israeli Occupation was over the ground transitioned to terra nullius. And then the effective control over the territory by Israel is an occupation over a territory that was — a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation.” From the cessation of hostilities in 1967 until the Disengagement in 1988, the status over the territory was peaceful. The transition from Sovereign Jordanian territory to terra nullius was seamless; without any conflict.​

​

◈ At the time of terra nullius, there was no opposing government to the staus and there was no Arab Palestinian Government in place. In fact, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had not even Declared Independence.​

​

A question on the table is: If the Abbas announcement that the Oslo Accords are terminated, does that affect the status of the Palestinian Claim to be a State?

FOOTNOTE.......................................
The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” [EXCERPT: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 595 3d Ed (2009) Oxford University Press]

Most Respectfully,
R

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession,

Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1967 occupation?
Was it "peaceful" (i.e. uncontested) after the 1948 occupation?

"Peaceful'' Arab wars of 1948 and 1967.

You need to keep up.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I don't believe that is what I said.

Against Jordanian advice, the APG re-activated what it could of the Holy War Army. It was not a defense force but specifically tasked to liberate the whole of Palestine (an offensive mission objective).

Liberation is offensive? Rocco, you are a hoot.

Who writes this shit for you?

(COMMENT)

Anytime one entity is assembled to make an assault across the threshold into a sovereign nation, for whatever reason, that is - an offensive military campaign. In this case, it is defined as:

insurgency — The organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region. Insurgency can also refer to the group itself. (JP 3-24 Counterinsurgency 4 April 2020 pp ix)

I use the term insurgency because in 1948, the was no independent State of Palestine and there was no independent All Palestine Government (APG). In the case of what was called the APG, it was subordinate to the Egyptian Military Governorship. And the APG had to secure the approval of the Governorship before publishing any APG Law.

Most Respectfully,
R