Breaking The Last Taboo - Gaza And The Threat Of World War

[rhodescholar]

I find it hilarious that the anti-jewish scum bag filth like pbel, montelacci (or whatever its ID of the week is), fanger-idiot, etc., whine about ethnic cleansing in the mideast - yet ignore the massive amount done in the past and present by arab muslims...just ask the copts, maronites, assyrians, chaldeans, maneachans, azeri, bahai, kurds, jews (1 MILLION deported from arab muslim countries!), orthodox christians, and others - all ethnically cleansed from arab muslim countries by arab muslims...Arab muslims have been expelling non-muslims out of the mideast for centuries, destroying countless cultures/civilizations, and ISIS is simply the latest manifestation of this animalistic behavior by the death cult islam.

The sooner the world eradicates islam, the faster peace can be achieved in the mideast, and beyond.

There are literally dozens of points on the planet where the muslim world touches the non-muslim, and there is no peace.

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

I think you have confused your terminology and timeline.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

(COMMENT)

Who "owns" the land is a civil real estate issue; with nothing to do with sovereignty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the West Bank and engaged Jordanian Forces on Jordanian territory (annexed in 1951). Israeli Forces routed the Jordanian Forces and Occupied the West Bank. In 1988, Jordan severed all ties and governance over the West Bank. In 1993, by means of Article 3 of the Israel-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.

In 1967, in a preemptive strike to thwart a coordinated attack by Arab Forces, Israeli Forces entered the Gaza Strip which was occupied by Egyptian Forces. The Egyptian Forces were routed and Israeli Forces assumed the occupation. In 1979, by means of Article II of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the international boundary was set:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

 

[Daniyel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

No, the Palestinians have no rights in Israel except for basic human rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

No, the Palestinians have no rights in Israel except for basic human rights.

Let's see, should I believe treaties and international law?

Or should I believe you?

Hmmm, decisions, decisions.

 

[Daniyel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

No, the Palestinians have no rights in Israel except for basic human rights.

Let's see, should I believe treaties and international law?

Or should I believe you?

Hmmm, decisions, decisions.

I'm not trying to convince you.. but you should believe international law since it is the outcome of historically international affairs, and Rocco does excelleny work explaining it to all of us, and this is facts.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These few rules don't really give much to the Palestinians.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The territory under consideration (later to be known as "The Mandate of Palestine") was transferred to the Allied Powers; not the people of Palestine. The "Successor Governments" were determined by the "Allied Powers" via the League of Nations and the subsequence United Nations. For the purposes of the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne, the issues of "Nationality" were actually addressed and predate the Treaty, in the "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." As the territorial Mandate of Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty, and no conflicts arise from the treaty, nothing in the treaty (having be written by the very same Allied Powers) grants the Palestinians anything not addressed by the Allied Powers; it changes nothing.

• The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.
• The dual rights of "independence and sovereignty" --- and --- "self determination without external interference" were exercised once in 1950 (when the Palestinians of the West Bank ascended to Jordanian sovereignty) and again in 1988 (when declared independence).
• The right to territorial integrity is undefined, as they have not formally established a Treaty with any other sovereign nation on the matter of permanent international boundaries. The recognition of the State of Palestine is provisionally based on the demarcation lines by the UN in the Affirmation in the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.

The foregoing addresses your four points. But it must be clear that nothing in the Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A - 1948) may be interpreted as implying that the Palestinian has any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of the Israeli people.

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Borders --- PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)

And I believe that you have consistently failed to recognize the evolution of the current dispute, and the focus of the differences. You cannot keep rolling back the clock to a time of your choosing. You have to deal within the parameters of the here and now; not what might have been or should have been. Any settlement of the disputes has to be in a much more real and recent context.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These few rules don't really give much to the Palestinians.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are way off course. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has no applicability here at all.

I don't see a dispute.

Your Article 68 references enforcement of law (police not a military action) in a proper occupation. The laws of occupation have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of those obligations and restrictions. Its actions can more accurately be defined as colonialism. Under that definition all of Israel's actions are illegal.

Under that definition the remainder of your post would not be applicable.

(COMMENT)

The Settlements are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the dispute resolution process therein. The State of Palestine was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization and recognized as being within the boundaries of the territories occupied as of 1967. "The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have also repeatedly reaffirmed the de jure applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War." What more needs to be said?

This is all just recent politics that have no bearing on the roots of the problem.

Now there is an argument to be made in drawing a clear distinction between the case of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of "self-defense." But neither outcome would amount to colonial assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was definitely an aggressive conquest. There is no question about it.

The concept that Israel "defended itself" from the native population on their own land is too friggin bizarre for me to entertain particularly since the native population were civilians without an army.

Who gave them the land then, and were is the treaty agreed with the population and signed by their representative accepting the land ?

The Palestinians were given Palestine as a function of international law.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

This was echoed in the Treaty of Lausanne.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

The Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The territory under consideration (later to be known as "The Mandate of Palestine") was transferred to the Allied Powers; not the people of Palestine. The "Successor Governments" were determined by the "Allied Powers" via the League of Nations and the subsequence United Nations. For the purposes of the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne, the issues of "Nationality" were actually addressed and predate the Treaty, in the "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." As the territorial Mandate of Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty, and no conflicts arise from the treaty, nothing in the treaty (having be written by the very same Allied Powers) grants the Palestinians anything not addressed by the Allied Powers; it changes nothing.

• The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.
• The dual rights of "independence and sovereignty" --- and --- "self determination without external interference" were exercised once in 1950 (when the Palestinians of the West Bank ascended to Jordanian sovereignty) and again in 1988 (when declared independence).
• The right to territorial integrity is undefined, as they have not formally established a Treaty with any other sovereign nation on the matter of permanent international boundaries. The recognition of the State of Palestine is provisionally based on the demarcation lines by the UN in the Affirmation in the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.

The foregoing addresses your four points. But it must be clear that nothing in the Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A - 1948) may be interpreted as implying that the Palestinian has any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of the Israeli people.

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Borders --- PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)

And I believe that you have consistently failed to recognize the evolution of the current dispute, and the focus of the differences. You cannot keep rolling back the clock to a time of your choosing. You have to deal within the parameters of the here and now; not what might have been or should have been. Any settlement of the disputes has to be in a much more real and recent context.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Oslo accords never gave Israel rights to expropriate land.


Oslo a missed opportunity - Israel Opinion Ynetnews
The Palestinians are threatening to cancel the Oslo Accords. On the Israeli side, unbridled attacks on the agreement have crossed all red lines. They stem from maliciousness, distortion of facts, lack of understanding and ignorance of those who want to hide and blur the truth.
Oslo introduced the basic principles for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a "destiny" which no government can avoid. The entire world recognizes the Palestinians' right to their own state. This is mentioned in the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. Eventually, a Palestinian state will be established in spite of the efforts of those who are against it. The only alternative is a bi-national democratic state, a solution that would signify the end of Zionism.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Yeah, you haven't seen a messy divorce until the Oslo Accords are abrogated.

pbel, et al,

The Oslo accords never gave Israel rights to expropriate land.

Oslo a missed opportunity - Israel Opinion Ynetnews

The Palestinians are threatening to cancel the Oslo Accords. On the Israeli side, unbridled attacks on the agreement have crossed all red lines. They stem from maliciousness, distortion of facts, lack of understanding and ignorance of those who want to hide and blur the truth.
Oslo introduced the basic principles for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a "destiny" which no government can avoid. The entire world recognizes the Palestinians' right to their own state. This is mentioned in the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. Eventually, a Palestinian state will be established in spite of the efforts of those who are against it. The only alternative is a bi-national democratic state, a solution that would signify the end of Zionism.​

(COMMENT)

I think that everyone, including the Israelis, understand that there is going to be a Palestinian State.

Second, I'm not sure what the consequences are if the Oslo Accords simply go away. Right now, the Oslo Accords, which are binding, are the only thing that establishes any sort of jurisdiction the Palestinians have. There is an argument to be made that the Occupation Power (the Israelis) take full and complete jurisdiction (effective control) over both Areas "A" and "B".

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

Didn't Oslo expire without any of the proposals finalized into a signed agreement?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No.

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

Didn't Oslo [Accords] expire without any of the proposals finalized into a signed agreement?

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects to the functionality of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the administration of Areas "A" - "B" - and - "C;" as well as the issue of security cooperation with Israel. Additionally, a de facto freeze still is in effect in most parts of Judea and Samaria largely because of the interface between the PA and the Israelis (a legacy thru influence of the Accords).

Why would Palestine LiberationOrganization (PLO) Secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo be talking about the Accords if they were irrelevant? No, they are very much still in play.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No.

pbel, et al,

While it is a legitimate discussion on the wisdom and the practical merit on the current 1000 acre proposal, the legitimacy is govern by something entirely different.

What is that evolution Senior ZioNut? The current illegal land grabbing by the Zionist thieving entity?

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times before, Area "C" appropriations are covered under the Oslo Accords. Any dispute you have with the Oslo Accord are to be handled through the dispute resolution process which the Palestinians have yet to engage.

Is it "illegal?" You have to look at what the Palestinians agreed to in the Oslo Accords, in comparison to the proposal.

Most Respectfully,
R

Didn't Oslo [Accords] expire without any of the proposals finalized into a signed agreement?

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects to the functionality of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the administration of Areas "A" - "B" - and - "C;" as well as the issue of security cooperation with Israel. Additionally, a de facto freeze still is in effect in most parts of Judea and Samaria largely because of the interface between the PA and the Israelis (a legacy thru influence of the Accords).

Why would Palestine LiberationOrganization (PLO) Secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo be talking about the Accords if they were irrelevant? No, they are very much still in play.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo stated that it was a 5 year plan.

What's up with that?

 

[teddyearp]

And so we have another thread that drags up all the history of the conflict back to the fore.

Since we are talking history, what I would like to know about is this:

There is just about as much 'evidence' for the supposed "Plan D" as there is for the Arab League encouraging the Arabs to leave in 1948 with promise to return after the defeat of the Jews.

So which is it? Which is true?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.

Rocco, you are trying to confuse the issue again.

It is true that the allied powers defined Palestine's international borders as was the case for Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan. There is no conflict. Neither the LoN nor the mandates claimed ownership of any of those lands. Those lands were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine as is regularly implied. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to assist the people (the Palestinians) in realizing their right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

Britain failed to achieve that goal, however, that did not negate those inalienable rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The right to territorial integrity is undefined, as they have not formally established a Treaty with any other sovereign nation on the matter of permanent international boundaries.

No treaties are necessary. As stated before, Palestine's international borders were defined by the allied powers as were the borders of all of the successor states in that region.

The only time a treaty would be required is if there is a border dispute. There has never been a border dispute between Palestine and any of ite neighbors.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All peoples have the right of self determination. You cling to that, as if it has some special meaning and powers. It does not. It only means that they have the ability to make choices.

The complete set of the "People of Palestine" consists of the two major subsets (culturally: Jewish and Arab). Each with equal rights and each holding the same right of self-determination; meaning the right itself is not exclusive to either one of the subsets. Each attempted to exercise their determination relative to governance.

A bid to to change the status of the government from one state to the next may be attempted, but it may also fail. That did not deny them the "right to self determination" or "independence." They simply exercised their choice and failed as a consequence of their action.

The Allied Powers defined the territory. The Palestinians did NOT define the territory. Therefore, there is a conflict in the reasoning that the "Palestinians have rights inside their defined territory" - when --- if point of fact --- it was a territory defined by the Allied Powers.

Rocco, you are trying to confuse the issue again.

It is true that the allied powers defined Palestine's international borders as was the case for Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan. There is no conflict. Neither the LoN nor the mandates claimed ownership of any of those lands. Those lands were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

The Mandate for Palestine was not Palestine as is regularly implied. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to assist the people (the Palestinians) in realizing their right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

Britain failed to achieve that goal, however, that did not negate those inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied), of course the LoN did not claim ownership (right of possession). Ownership is a real estate term. The LoN/Mandatory established and claimed "full powers of legislation and of administration" over the territory (total governance); the same as held by the previous sovereign power (Ottoman Empire). This is something that neither the Jewish or Arab components had for more than a thousand years; sovereign control.

The Mandatory did not fail to achieve their goals. It was the People of Palestine that failed themselves in the ability to achieve social, cultural and economic development in peace. One only needs to look at the two competing cultures: The Jewish culture, encapsulated by counter-cultures on all sides, and the Arab-Palestinians with a multitude of culturally similar allies regionally. Yet the Arab-Palestinian has not been able to achieve peace given every opportunity and every advantage. (Who has the demonstrated ability to stand alone?)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The complete set of the "People of Palestine" consists of the two major subsets (culturally: Jewish and Arab). Each with equal rights and each holding the same right of self-determination; meaning the right itself is not exclusive to either one of the subsets. Each attempted to exercise their determination relative to governance.

Are you saying that ISIS has the same right to self determination in Iraq as the Iraqi natives?

Please explain where you get that opinion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the case of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied), of course the LoN did not claim ownership (right of possession). Ownership is a real estate term.

Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor State and
withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State

When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of the right of option which all such persons shall be granted.

http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_480_and_add1.pdf

Then what does "transfer of territory" mean if not to change ownership?