Boycott Israel

[Shusha]

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Oh hold on just a second.

Are you trying to argue that it is cough cough illegal for governments to sign treaties and enter into agreements with other States or entities?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(FACT CHECK)

OK, We have a couple of things here that you must remember:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. The PLO has all the authority it needs.

◈ Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974

◈ Paraghaph 3, 14, 95 and 134, UN Document A/PV.2268 sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine 14 October 1974

◈ A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974 •

Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine,

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.
​

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47)

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC​

There is a list of violations that are illegal with or without Oslo.

(COMMENT)

Once you understand that the PLO is (absolutely) the proper authority, then the question is reduced to a matter of:

• CONFLICTS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIES •

In a previous article in this JOURNAL the conclusion was reached, that when the state expresses its will definitely, as through a statute, courts will recognize such a source of law as superior to international law and apply the statute in case of a conflict. Statutes, however, ordinarily apply only within the territory of the state. They are pronouncements of the internal sovereignty of the state. Thus, within its boundaries, judicial practice recognizes that the state enjoys l'auto- nomie de la volonte. A Is there a similar judicial recognition of the external sovereignty of the state? The very idea of international law seems to imply that the external activity of the state is limited by law, but ordinary courts of justice, because of their limited jurisdiction, cannot often consider cases involving such activity. There is, however, one type of case in which they may do so, that in which a conflict arises between the immediate will of the state as expressed in a treaty and international law.

[l'auto- nomie de la volonte → autonomy of willpower]

​

Article 47 does NOT challenge the authority of the PLO to enter into an agreement. It says that any such agreement does NOT negate any benefits of the Geneva Convention.

​

Your (main•but not the only) weakness here is that you do not go beyond the internet propaganda and do the proper research. Instead, you just take what some know-it-all, with no credentials - submits.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(FACT CHECK)

OK, We have a couple of things here that you must remember:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. The PLO has all the authority it needs.

◈ Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974

◈ Paraghaph 3, 14, 95 and 134, UN Document A/PV.2268 sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine 14 October 1974

◈ A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974 •

Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine,

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.
​

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47)

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC​

There is a list of violations that are illegal with or without Oslo.

(COMMENT)

Once you understand that the PLO is (absolutely) the proper authority, then the question is reduced to a matter of:

• CONFLICTS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIES •

In a previous article in this JOURNAL the conclusion was reached, that when the state expresses its will definitely, as through a statute, courts will recognize such a source of law as superior to international law and apply the statute in case of a conflict. Statutes, however, ordinarily apply only within the territory of the state. They are pronouncements of the internal sovereignty of the state. Thus, within its boundaries, judicial practice recognizes that the state enjoys l'auto- nomie de la volonte. A Is there a similar judicial recognition of the external sovereignty of the state? The very idea of international law seems to imply that the external activity of the state is limited by law, but ordinary courts of justice, because of their limited jurisdiction, cannot often consider cases involving such activity. There is, however, one type of case in which they may do so, that in which a conflict arises between the immediate will of the state as expressed in a treaty and international law.

[l'auto- nomie de la volonte → autonomy of willpower]

View attachment 259756
​

Article 47 does NOT challenge the authority of the PLO to enter into an agreement. It says that any such agreement does NOT negate any benefits of the Geneva Convention.

View attachment 259755
​

Your (main•but not the only) weakness here is that you do not go beyond the internet propaganda and do the proper research. Instead, you just take what some know-it-all, with no credentials - submits.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to address that very first line. All the rest of you laundary list, is political window dressing.

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(FACT CHECK)

OK, We have a couple of things here that you must remember:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. The PLO has all the authority it needs.

◈ Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974

◈ Paraghaph 3, 14, 95 and 134, UN Document A/PV.2268 sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine 14 October 1974

◈ A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974 •

Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine,

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.
​

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47)

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC​

There is a list of violations that are illegal with or without Oslo.

(COMMENT)

Once you understand that the PLO is (absolutely) the proper authority, then the question is reduced to a matter of:

• CONFLICTS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIES •

In a previous article in this JOURNAL the conclusion was reached, that when the state expresses its will definitely, as through a statute, courts will recognize such a source of law as superior to international law and apply the statute in case of a conflict. Statutes, however, ordinarily apply only within the territory of the state. They are pronouncements of the internal sovereignty of the state. Thus, within its boundaries, judicial practice recognizes that the state enjoys l'auto- nomie de la volonte. A Is there a similar judicial recognition of the external sovereignty of the state? The very idea of international law seems to imply that the external activity of the state is limited by law, but ordinary courts of justice, because of their limited jurisdiction, cannot often consider cases involving such activity. There is, however, one type of case in which they may do so, that in which a conflict arises between the immediate will of the state as expressed in a treaty and international law.

[l'auto- nomie de la volonte → autonomy of willpower]

View attachment 259756
​

Article 47 does NOT challenge the authority of the PLO to enter into an agreement. It says that any such agreement does NOT negate any benefits of the Geneva Convention.

View attachment 259755
​

Your (main•but not the only) weakness here is that you do not go beyond the internet propaganda and do the proper research. Instead, you just take what some know-it-all, with no credentials - submits.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT undermine and Palestinian Rights. (No matter how desparately you want it to be so.) The Rights of the Palestinian People were represented in the hands of the PLO (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated). In 1993, there was no occupation of Arab Palestinian Territory. The PLO had not yet liberated any territory. The Oslo Accords established, for the first time, the PLO as having governmental authority. And since that time, all the Palestinian people have done is to gradually erode the promise of that government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to address that very first line. All the rest of you laundary list, is political window dressing.

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(FACT CHECK)

OK, We have a couple of things here that you must remember:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. The PLO has all the authority it needs.

◈ Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974

◈ Paraghaph 3, 14, 95 and 134, UN Document A/PV.2268 sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine 14 October 1974

◈ A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974 •

Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine,

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.
​

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47)

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC​

There is a list of violations that are illegal with or without Oslo.

(COMMENT)

Once you understand that the PLO is (absolutely) the proper authority, then the question is reduced to a matter of:

• CONFLICTS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIES •

In a previous article in this JOURNAL the conclusion was reached, that when the state expresses its will definitely, as through a statute, courts will recognize such a source of law as superior to international law and apply the statute in case of a conflict. Statutes, however, ordinarily apply only within the territory of the state. They are pronouncements of the internal sovereignty of the state. Thus, within its boundaries, judicial practice recognizes that the state enjoys l'auto- nomie de la volonte. A Is there a similar judicial recognition of the external sovereignty of the state? The very idea of international law seems to imply that the external activity of the state is limited by law, but ordinary courts of justice, because of their limited jurisdiction, cannot often consider cases involving such activity. There is, however, one type of case in which they may do so, that in which a conflict arises between the immediate will of the state as expressed in a treaty and international law.

[l'auto- nomie de la volonte → autonomy of willpower]

View attachment 259756
​

Article 47 does NOT challenge the authority of the PLO to enter into an agreement. It says that any such agreement does NOT negate any benefits of the Geneva Convention.

View attachment 259755
​

Your (main•but not the only) weakness here is that you do not go beyond the internet propaganda and do the proper research. Instead, you just take what some know-it-all, with no credentials - submits.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT undermine and Palestinian Rights. (No matter how desparately you want it to be so.) The Rights of the Palestinian People were represented in the hands of the PLO (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated). In 1993, there was no occupation of Arab Palestinian Territory. The PLO had not yet liberated any territory. The Oslo Accords established, for the first time, the PLO as having governmental authority. And since that time, all the Palestinian people have done is to gradually erode the promise of that government.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did Oslo make illegal settlements legal?

 

[Shusha]

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The fallacy is in the idea that there was an "occupying power" and an "occupied territory" in 1994. There was not. The government of the nascent State of Palestine, representing the people of Palestine, was for the FIRST TIME taking steps towards self-governing -- notably the ability to enter into agreements with States. There can't be an occupation of something which doesn't exist (that is a State).

 

[Shusha]

Did Oslo make illegal settlements legal?

The question is silly.

Ask your self instead: What makes it illegal for Israeli citizens to live in that specifically defined territory AND what makes it illegal for Palestinian citizens to live in that specifically defined territory?

Go ahead. Try to do that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

This is a typical pattern of behavior. Your attempt at argument is shot down in flames so you cut and paste some silly cartoon and bail.

This particular flaming, nonsensical tirade makes a reference to something called “stolen land” yet neither you, nor your cartoons, ever make a clear case for any stolen land.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to address that very first line. All the rest of you laundary list, is political window dressing.

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(FACT CHECK)

OK, We have a couple of things here that you must remember:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. The PLO has all the authority it needs.

◈ Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974

◈ Paraghaph 3, 14, 95 and 134, UN Document A/PV.2268 sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine 14 October 1974

◈ A/RES/3210 (XXIX) 14 October 1974 •

Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine,

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.
​

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47)

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC​

There is a list of violations that are illegal with or without Oslo.

(COMMENT)

Once you understand that the PLO is (absolutely) the proper authority, then the question is reduced to a matter of:

• CONFLICTS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIES •

In a previous article in this JOURNAL the conclusion was reached, that when the state expresses its will definitely, as through a statute, courts will recognize such a source of law as superior to international law and apply the statute in case of a conflict. Statutes, however, ordinarily apply only within the territory of the state. They are pronouncements of the internal sovereignty of the state. Thus, within its boundaries, judicial practice recognizes that the state enjoys l'auto- nomie de la volonte. A Is there a similar judicial recognition of the external sovereignty of the state? The very idea of international law seems to imply that the external activity of the state is limited by law, but ordinary courts of justice, because of their limited jurisdiction, cannot often consider cases involving such activity. There is, however, one type of case in which they may do so, that in which a conflict arises between the immediate will of the state as expressed in a treaty and international law.

[l'auto- nomie de la volonte → autonomy of willpower]

View attachment 259756
​

Article 47 does NOT challenge the authority of the PLO to enter into an agreement. It says that any such agreement does NOT negate any benefits of the Geneva Convention.

View attachment 259755
​

Your (main•but not the only) weakness here is that you do not go beyond the internet propaganda and do the proper research. Instead, you just take what some know-it-all, with no credentials - submits.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT undermine and Palestinian Rights. (No matter how desparately you want it to be so.) The Rights of the Palestinian People were represented in the hands of the PLO (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated). In 1993, there was no occupation of Arab Palestinian Territory. The PLO had not yet liberated any territory. The Oslo Accords established, for the first time, the PLO as having governmental authority. And since that time, all the Palestinian people have done is to gradually erode the promise of that government.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did Oslo make illegal settlements legal?

What illegal settlements are you referring to?

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

UAW 2865 BDS Caucus Panel Discussion

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Peter Beinart, Non-Resident Fellow, Foundation for Middle East Peace, engaged Omar Barghouti, Co-Founder, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement, in a discussion about the official BDS movement and Omar’s role as a leader of it. Jim Zogby, Co-Founder and President, Arab American Institute, gave the introduction.

NYU DC Conversation: The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jewish students stop antisemitic cartoons on campus

 

[P F Tinmore]

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The fallacy is in the idea that there was an "occupying power" and an "occupied territory" in 1994. There was not. The government of the nascent State of Palestine, representing the people of Palestine, was for the FIRST TIME taking steps towards self-governing -- notably the ability to enter into agreements with States. There can't be an occupation of something which doesn't exist (that is a State).

Israel recognized Palestine as a state when it signed an agreement with it.

 

[rylah]

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The fallacy is in the idea that there was an "occupying power" and an "occupied territory" in 1994. There was not. The government of the nascent State of Palestine, representing the people of Palestine, was for the FIRST TIME taking steps towards self-governing -- notably the ability to enter into agreements with States. There can't be an occupation of something which doesn't exist (that is a State).

Israel recognized Palestine as a state when it signed an agreement with it.

To claim something You refuse each time as an "illegal agreement" ?
Typical Jihadi mentality.

You just don't get how foolish is this position negotiation wise, it's just pride for nothing and more nothing and less as a result. Meanwhile Jewish birthrates surpass that of the Arabs and more Arab states openly side Israel.

Then You build a whole narrative on a bluff everyone already realized to be a joke on Your own incompetence to recognize reality.

 

[Street Juice]

MUST, MUST SEE: Boycott Israel!!! | Israel Video Network
MUST, MUST SEE: Boycott Israel!!! | Israel Video Network

Netanyahu boasted about having Trump as his little lapdog and said he wanted war with Iran. Today we send an aircraft carrier to "confront Iranian aggression" -- read that again, we are sailing to their country to confront their aggression. I hate Israel. I hate Mike Pompeo. I hate John Bolton. I hate what Jews have done to this country. I hate that we are such slaves to them. If we are to survive, we must end their control of the media by any means necessary.

 

[Shusha]

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The fallacy is in the idea that there was an "occupying power" and an "occupied territory" in 1994. There was not. The government of the nascent State of Palestine, representing the people of Palestine, was for the FIRST TIME taking steps towards self-governing -- notably the ability to enter into agreements with States. There can't be an occupation of something which doesn't exist (that is a State).

Israel recognized Palestine as a state when it signed an agreement with it.

Meh. Not convinced that is entirely true, but close enough and let's go with that. In 1994 Israel recognized Palestine as a state. Cool.

What territory did Israel recognize as no longer under Israeli sovereignty? On which territory was Palestine self-governing? According to the Oslo Agreement?

Therefore, in particular, what territory was recognized by Israel as belonging to Palestine but was not turned over to Palestinian authority and could, post-Oslo, still be considered "occupied"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The bottom line is that no agreement between the occupying power and the occupied can allow the violation of the people's rights.

The fallacy is in the idea that there was an "occupying power" and an "occupied territory" in 1994. There was not. The government of the nascent State of Palestine, representing the people of Palestine, was for the FIRST TIME taking steps towards self-governing -- notably the ability to enter into agreements with States. There can't be an occupation of something which doesn't exist (that is a State).

Israel recognized Palestine as a state when it signed an agreement with it.

Meh. Not convinced that is entirely true, but close enough and let's go with that. In 1994 Israel recognized Palestine as a state. Cool.

What territory did Israel recognize as no longer under Israeli sovereignty? On which territory was Palestine self-governing? According to the Oslo Agreement?

Therefore, in particular, what territory was recognized by Israel as belonging to Palestine but was not turned over to Palestinian authority and could, post-Oslo, still be considered "occupied"?

Therefore, in particular, what territory was recognized by Israel as belonging to Palestine

It doesn't matter what Israel recognizes.