P F Tinmore,
et al,
Make sure you understand the time reference in comments about the origin of the "Palestinian" and the derivative of the terms. There is a difference between the "terms" when talking about pre-Palestine Order in Council, post-Palestine Mandate, and the contemporary Palestine
alla 1988.
It is also important to note that no legitimate authority denies that there might be a basis for claims and restitution on grievances that have yet been litigated by the dispute resolution process. And that the Israelis have a similar standing on their disputes.
P F Tinmore,
et al,
The Dispute Resolution Process can be initiated under the authority of the:
The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the
DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.
Article X
JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.
Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an
A/RES/25/2625 process
(negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.
I wasn't asking about procedures. I was asking about authority.
(COMMENT)
The key is that both parties to the Agreement (The DOP between Israel and the PLO) must agree, just as they must agree to any alternative process. Each party to the dispute must want to engage in a comprehensive peace accord process and agree to it being binding; whatever the outcome.
What type of "authority are you looking for?
Most Respectfully,
R
We have all heard a gazillion times from Israel's propagandists that there never was a Palestine, that there never were any Palestinians, that they had no land or borders or rights.
Now that the Palestinians are expected to accept partition, change their borders and cede land they magically get the authority to do so.
Seriously folks, you can't make this shit up.
Israel makes Alice in Wonderland look like the bastion of sanity.
(COMMENT)
In the
Post #185, which centers on an agreement after the Declaration of Independence for the State of Palestine (
DoI---SoP)
(sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967), it must be remembered that it was a set of agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Your claim the "
propagandists that there never was a Palestine, that there never were any Palestinians, that they had no land or borders or rights," is out of context. You know, as well as everyone on the board, that the DoI --- SoP (as linked above), has been cited many times. You (likewise) know that the UN Acknowledgement has been cited many times.
I will acknowledge that both sides have made ancient territorial claims and entitlement which, and while interesting and intellectually stimulating, have no real impact on the territorial rights and sovereignty claimed in either the contemporary times (the last half century) or in the last 1000 years. None of the ancient claims, prior to that sovereignty claimed by the Ottoman Empire, has any foundation under modern times under modern terms.
The Agreements (Oslo I and II) does not "change their borders and cede land they magically get the authority to do so." The agreements do not effect the
sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 at all. There is no "Alice in Wonderland" association --- about it.
There is an argument to be made that there does not exist, within the
territory occupied since 1967, a competent authority or a government with the capacity to actually represent the Palestinian People.
Most Respectfully,
R
