It is tough to fight when you struggle with simple punctuation.
Funny, I thought that people in Australia spoke English. Or is there no requirement to go to school there? Enquiring minds want to know.
BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
- Thread starter louie888
- Start date
- Status
Funny, I thought that people in Australia spoke English. Or is there no requirement to go to school there? Enquiring minds want to know.
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
I've been on this Board for years and this is the first time I've seen theliq claim to be Jewish.
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
I am an Ashkenaz Jew, but I just took a DNA test last week. No pain, just a swab inside my mouth. As soon as I see where my ancestors came from, I'll get back to you with the results.
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
Well, Australians are descended from criminals and lowlives who were thrown out of Britain long ago.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
And, yes... That is a very important aspect of the entire dialog and remains still today, → a developing scenario...
At its deep core → the discord prevalent in the Israeli and Arab Palestinian inability to establish a Regional Peace (at least in their small corner of the world), "is" stagnant because contemporary political developments are NOT essential to either. And there does not seem to be a global need arising from an improved commerce and a corresponding increase from the exchange in technological trade. It is pretty close to what the world expected the situation to be.
Well this is not actually a correct perception. The 1967 Six-Day War was not a conflict between Israel and the Arab Palestinian citizenry. But rather, it was a conflict between Israel and the threat of an impending attack (staging military forces) by a few members of the Arab League.
When the territories first came under the effective control of Israel, it was not under Arab Palestinian sovereignty. The effective control interrupted the Jordanian sovereignty. And without the prejudiced with regards to the Jordanian Annexation, the Arab Palestinians voluntarily acquired (The Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank and Jerusalem were equally represented in Parliament; which unanimously approved the annexation → this being the exercise of their "Right of Self-Determination.) a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country of the new nationality; becoming citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordanian (Cession: When a state has been ceded in another state, all the people of the territory acquire the nationality of the state in which their territory has been merged.).
With regard to the statement that: "Palestine was founded under belligerent occupation." In 1949, when the Jordanians initially move in upon the occupied territories (delineated by Armistice Lines), the status of the territory under siege was not yet solidified. Though 1950 → 1967, the status changed. And then the Six-Day War altered that even further.
In terms of the claim that the "Palestinians merely resisted that aggression" → that is inaccurate. At best they would been Jordanians overtaken in the military pursuit of Jordanian elements in a hasty withdrawal. At the close of hostilities in the Six-Day War, the West Bank and Jerusalem was Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israeli Defense Force. This remained true until 31 July 1988, when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the people, stripped them of their citizenship, relinquished any claim on the territories.
Since the end of the Six-Day War, the West Bank and Jerusalem were compatible with the obligation of the Occupying Power under Article 42 and 43 of the Hague Regulations. The Government of the State of Israel has, with the passage of time as the Occupying Powers, more formally recognized the conditions that have evolved through today as the normal military-political environment that you describe as a belligerent occupation; except for those slivers of territory altered by the Knesset.
It is NOT a case of Arab Palestinians resisting aggressor action. Whatever you might want to describe the outcome as, that ended with the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan. IF you wish to address it as an "Belligerent Occupation," → THEN you must accept that under the Hague Regulation to restore peace, and the disorder created by the Hostile Arab Palestinian, Israel must take what reasonable countermeasures as necessary, as the Occupying Power, "take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
And, yes... That is a very important aspect of the entire dialog and remains still today, → a developing scenario...
At its deep core → the discord prevalent in the Israeli and Arab Palestinian inability to establish a Regional Peace (at least in their small corner of the world), "is" stagnant because contemporary political developments are NOT essential to either. And there does not seem to be a global need arising from an improved commerce and a corresponding increase from the exchange in technological trade. It is pretty close to what the world expected the situation to be.
(COMMENT)
Well this is not actually a correct perception. The 1967 Six-Day War was not a conflict between Israel and the Arab Palestinian citizenry. But rather, it was a conflict between Israel and the threat of an impending attack (staging military forces) by a few members of the Arab League.
When the territories first came under the effective control of Israel, it was not under Arab Palestinian sovereignty. The effective control interrupted the Jordanian sovereignty. And without the prejudiced with regards to the Jordanian Annexation, the Arab Palestinians voluntarily acquired (The Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank and Jerusalem were equally represented in Parliament; which unanimously approved the annexation → this being the exercise of their "Right of Self-Determination.) a new nationality, and enjoyed the protection of the country of the new nationality; becoming citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordanian (Cession: When a state has been ceded in another state, all the people of the territory acquire the nationality of the state in which their territory has been merged.).
With regard to the statement that: "Palestine was founded under belligerent occupation." In 1949, when the Jordanians initially move in upon the occupied territories (delineated by Armistice Lines), the status of the territory under siege was not yet solidified. Though 1950 → 1967, the status changed. And then the Six-Day War altered that even further.
✪ Clearly the territory (that which is called the West Bank today) was not part of the original Israel, as intended by the Participant Plan; nor originally claimed by the Provisional Government.
✪ Clearly, it was no longer subject to the Mandate Authority, having no mechanism in place to assume responsibility.
✪ Clearly is was not under the Arab Palestinians (Arab Higher Committee) had no mechanism in place, having rejected self-governance and later adopting Jordan as the parent nation. So, in this case, Jordan was the governing power and the displaced sovereign in the 1967 War.
✪ Clearly, it was no longer subject to the Mandate Authority, having no mechanism in place to assume responsibility.
✪ Clearly is was not under the Arab Palestinians (Arab Higher Committee) had no mechanism in place, having rejected self-governance and later adopting Jordan as the parent nation. So, in this case, Jordan was the governing power and the displaced sovereign in the 1967 War.
In terms of the claim that the "Palestinians merely resisted that aggression" → that is inaccurate. At best they would been Jordanians overtaken in the military pursuit of Jordanian elements in a hasty withdrawal. At the close of hostilities in the Six-Day War, the West Bank and Jerusalem was Jordanian Territory under occupation by Israeli Defense Force. This remained true until 31 July 1988, when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the people, stripped them of their citizenship, relinquished any claim on the territories.
Since the end of the Six-Day War, the West Bank and Jerusalem were compatible with the obligation of the Occupying Power under Article 42 and 43 of the Hague Regulations. The Government of the State of Israel has, with the passage of time as the Occupying Powers, more formally recognized the conditions that have evolved through today as the normal military-political environment that you describe as a belligerent occupation; except for those slivers of territory altered by the Knesset.
It is NOT a case of Arab Palestinians resisting aggressor action. Whatever you might want to describe the outcome as, that ended with the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan. IF you wish to address it as an "Belligerent Occupation," → THEN you must accept that under the Hague Regulation to restore peace, and the disorder created by the Hostile Arab Palestinian, Israel must take what reasonable countermeasures as necessary, as the Occupying Power, "take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
What does all that verbosity have to do with Palestine being founded under belligerent occupation?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
Your clunker of the day.
Jordan could not annex occupied territory. The world considered the West Bank to be occupied by Jordan.
1)Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
2)The sovereignty remains in the hands of the people.
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
Rocco, you are wasting your time writing these dissertations to Professor Abstract Philosophy here. In one ear, out the other.
theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #649
Well here we go again,,,,THE REASON AUSTRALIA BECAME A PENAL COLONY WAS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS PLACE THE WERE SENT TO WAS UNAVAILABLE,,,,,AMERICA...YOU DUMB IGNORAMASES....SO IT IS YOU GUYS ARE ?HOW DID YOU PUT IT "CRIMINALS AND LOWLIVES(actually the term is..Lowlifes... but don't expect a Wanky Yanky to know that)...so you fy.jq and link can carry on verbal Wanking all the time we expect nothing less out of your YANK TANK WANK...ENJOY lol
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is just one of several mistake of the day.
The reality of sovereignty does not require (in fact it is independence of) recognition. All Jordan had to do was enforce and protect the new Annexation.
Your linkage of "sovereignty" and "the hands of the people" demonstrates is completely naive. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait invest the matters of sovereignty to the appropriate royal families. I doubt that the people of the Democratic Republic of Korea believe that sovereignty rests in the hands of the people. There are many practical examples that the reality is nothing like you describe it on matters of sovereignty. The Sudan, Rwanda, Angola and Equatorial Guinea are either a direct dictatorship or ; in which the sovereignty rests with one man. And I'm not quite sure what Iran Iran is; but the sovereignty of the nation is nt in the hands of the people.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is just one of several mistake of the day.
(COMMENT)
The reality of sovereignty does not require (in fact it is independence of) recognition. All Jordan had to do was enforce and protect the new Annexation.
A1: Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
[15] Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 149; and Shaw, p. 424.
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty.
A2: Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.[3]
[3] See Shaw, pp. 411-12. You have to be careful; remember Black September when the Arab Palestinians attempted to "Take by force" the Hashemite Kingdom.
[15] Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 149; and Shaw, p. 424.
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty.
A2: Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.[3]
[3] See Shaw, pp. 411-12. You have to be careful; remember Black September when the Arab Palestinians attempted to "Take by force" the Hashemite Kingdom.
Your linkage of "sovereignty" and "the hands of the people" demonstrates is completely naive. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait invest the matters of sovereignty to the appropriate royal families. I doubt that the people of the Democratic Republic of Korea believe that sovereignty rests in the hands of the people. There are many practical examples that the reality is nothing like you describe it on matters of sovereignty. The Sudan, Rwanda, Angola and Equatorial Guinea are either a direct dictatorship or ; in which the sovereignty rests with one man. And I'm not quite sure what Iran Iran is; but the sovereignty of the nation is nt in the hands of the people.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as Mabo) was a landmark High Court of Australia decision in 1992 recognising native title in Australia for the first time.
The High Court held that the doctrine of terra nullius, which imported all laws of England to a new land, did not apply in circumstances where there were already inhabitants present – even if those inhabitants had been regarded at the time as "uncivilized".
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) - Wikipedia
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
My last paragraph contained no typos. You read it. But if the big words confuse you I'll dumb it down a bit. What Jewish identity are you affiliated with? Careful... I might be a Rabbi who is testing you..
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.
Neither the British occupation nor the Israeli occupations have been peaceful.
These rules underline the basic concern of the law of occupation, which is to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied territory as far as is practically possible. This makes sense. The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
You cut and pasted an opinion.
theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #656
Now is time for a little REALITY on the CRIMES AGAINST HUMAITY(The Palestinians)PERPETUATED AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS,all this is Accurately Scoursed and FACT....this will be up dated from time to time:-
5 Hours!!!!!!!!after the Mandate was ended....The Zionist Terrorists began their systematic destruction of 2bcontinued
5 Hours!!!!!!!!after the Mandate was ended....The Zionist Terrorists began their systematic destruction of 2bcontinued
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You read it and still got it wrong.
In the case of Australia, the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, had the equivalent of tribal territorial sovereignty that was continuous until the challenge.
In the case of the 1967 Six-Day War, the Jordanian Forces withdrew - and the Israeli Force - immediately filled the vacuum. The Arab Palestinians, as an independent entity, did not have territorial sovereignty in 1948. The Arab Palestinians, as an independent entity, did not have territorial sovereignty in 1968. AND, the Arab Palestinians, as an independent entity, did not have territorial sovereignty in July 1988; when the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties. In fact, there was no Arab Palestinian entity in July 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon effective control.
In the case of the West Bank, the Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
One more time... The the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders had possession of the territory as a claim.
The Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 Case is not a true case under equivalent conditions.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You read it and still got it wrong.
(COMMENT)
In the case of Australia, the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, had the equivalent of tribal territorial sovereignty that was continuous until the challenge.
In the case of the 1967 Six-Day War, the Jordanian Forces withdrew - and the Israeli Force - immediately filled the vacuum. The Arab Palestinians, as an independent entity, did not have territorial sovereignty in 1948. The Arab Palestinians, as an independent entity, did not have territorial sovereignty in 1968. AND, the Arab Palestinians, as an independent entity, did not have territorial sovereignty in July 1988; when the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties. In fact, there was no Arab Palestinian entity in July 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon effective control.
In the case of the West Bank, the Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
One more time... The the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders had possession of the territory as a claim.
• In the case of the Arab Palestinians never established the effective control came to be required together to constitute title to territory.
• In the case of the Arab Palestinians the territorial sovereignty was never taken from them.
• The sovereignty was never passed by the Jordanian to an Arab Palestinian Government, and the territory effective control was never relinquished to the Arab Palestinians.
• In the case of the Arab Palestinians the territorial sovereignty was never taken from them.
• The sovereignty was never passed by the Jordanian to an Arab Palestinian Government, and the territory effective control was never relinquished to the Arab Palestinians.
The Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 Case is not a true case under equivalent conditions.
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, the handbook does say that.
IF the threshold of "peace" is never achieved, THEN there was never an end to hostilities.
Yes, it says "conquered." The conflict between the Israeli Forces and the Jordanian Forces officially ended with the Peace Treaty of 1994.
"Bearing in mind that in their Washington Declaration of 25th July, 1994, they declared the termination of the state of belligerency between them;
Deciding to establish peace between them in accordance with this Treaty of Peace;"
The Eastern Boundary of Israel (relative to the West Bank) and the boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers. The boundary line is shown on the 1:50,000 image maps (2 sheets Appendix II attached to the Annex). The list of geographic and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of this boundary line shall be based on Israel Jordan Boundary Datum (IJBD 1994) and, when completed and agreed upon by both parties, this list of coordinates shall be binding and take precedence over the maps as to the location of the boundary line in the Dead Sea and the salt pans.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, the handbook does say that.
(COMMENT)
IF the threshold of "peace" is never achieved, THEN there was never an end to hostilities.
Yes, it says "conquered." The conflict between the Israeli Forces and the Jordanian Forces officially ended with the Peace Treaty of 1994.
"Bearing in mind that in their Washington Declaration of 25th July, 1994, they declared the termination of the state of belligerency between them;
Deciding to establish peace between them in accordance with this Treaty of Peace;"
The Eastern Boundary of Israel (relative to the West Bank) and the boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers. The boundary line is shown on the 1:50,000 image maps (2 sheets Appendix II attached to the Annex). The list of geographic and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of this boundary line shall be based on Israel Jordan Boundary Datum (IJBD 1994) and, when completed and agreed upon by both parties, this list of coordinates shall be binding and take precedence over the maps as to the location of the boundary line in the Dead Sea and the salt pans.
Most Respectfully,
R
I was referring to the Liq.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
BREAKING: Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect, new court filing says- Started by munkle
- Replies: 3
-
-
Trump posts video of a large explosion in U.S/Israeli mission- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 8
