Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

[Phoenall]

Pages of blabber and nothing to refute my posts.

What is there to refute when it has no supporting evidence, all you do is post the same LIES and LIBELS that have been refuted in the past. When you have proven evidence then we might listen, but to post the same lies time after time shows that you live in La La land

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.

And it is the truth that you cant hack, so you ignore the facts and carry on blindly. Every one of your posts has been taken apart and destroyed over the years and still you peddle them as if they were the only true account. Like your islamonazi scholar that you have 4 links to who has been found guilty of altering words in legal documents, re-arranging treaties and openly lying about the LoN treaties and laws. Or your use of proven lies by palestinian activists that have been shown to be propaganda and in many cases are not even anything to do with Isreal.


We will have to call you Daffy as you duck everything that shows you to be a complete idiot

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did this answer my question? (No!)

Well, we would come to hope for that to happen. But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

racialreality9, et al,

This says nothing.

Of course the Palestinians can govern Palestine, it belongs to them. Not to the Jewish occupiers.

(COMMENT)

Governance and ownership --- have no relationship. I own my property, but it is sovereignty territory to the US; which does not own my property. This is not a real estate deal.

(QUESTION)

When did "ANY" territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian come under occupation by the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People’s Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

This is depends on the form of government chosen... Of the 6 Arab Nations that took direct part in the attack on Israel (a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY) in 1948 - they are all sovereign states:

• Lebanon is a REPUBLIC: gaining independence from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
• Syria is a REPUBLIC under an authoritarian regime; now in Civil War heading toward instability and chaos.
• Jordan is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY having gained independence from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946.
• Egypt is a REPUBLIC having gained independence as a British Protectorate on 8 February 1922; but after revolutions begging in 1952 - and ending with a return to the REPUBLIC after British Forces are withdrawn.
• Iraq is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY first gaining independence from the British Mandate on 3 October 1932. After several coup d'état was - sovereignty was again transferred by Coalition Provisional Authority on 28 June 2004 to the Iraqi Interim Government. There is still a troubling conflict in Iraq and the final government undecided.
• Saudi Arabia is a MONARCHY over a Kingdom unified in September 1932.
​

"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation." Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia Iran, and China are all forms of "dictatorship" in which virtually no power rests with the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did this answer my question? (No!)

Well, we would come to hope for that to happen. But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

racialreality9, et al,

This says nothing.

Of course the Palestinians can govern Palestine, it belongs to them. Not to the Jewish occupiers.

(COMMENT)

Governance and ownership --- have no relationship. I own my property, but it is sovereignty territory to the US; which does not own my property. This is not a real estate deal.

(QUESTION)

When did "ANY" territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian come under occupation by the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People’s Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

This is depends on the form of government chosen... Of the 6 Arab Nations that took direct part in the attack on Israel (a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY) in 1948 - they are all sovereign states:

• Lebanon is a REPUBLIC: gaining independence from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
• Syria is a REPUBLIC under an authoritarian regime; now in Civil War heading toward instability and chaos.
• Jordan is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY having gained independence from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946.
• Egypt is a REPUBLIC having gained independence as a British Protectorate on 8 February 1922; but after revolutions begging in 1952 - and ending with a return to the REPUBLIC after British Forces are withdrawn.
• Iraq is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY first gaining independence from the British Mandate on 3 October 1932. After several coup d'état was - sovereignty was again transferred by Coalition Provisional Authority on 28 June 2004 to the Iraqi Interim Government. There is still a troubling conflict in Iraq and the final government undecided.
• Saudi Arabia is a MONARCHY over a Kingdom unified in September 1932.
​

"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation." Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia Iran, and China are all forms of "dictatorship" in which virtually no power rests with the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

I did answer your question. You should have already known the answer.

But then you turn around to tow Israel's line.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did this answer my question? (No!)

Well, we would come to hope for that to happen. But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

racialreality9, et al,

This says nothing.

Of course the Palestinians can govern Palestine, it belongs to them. Not to the Jewish occupiers.

(COMMENT)

Governance and ownership --- have no relationship. I own my property, but it is sovereignty territory to the US; which does not own my property. This is not a real estate deal.

(QUESTION)

When did "ANY" territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian come under occupation by the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People’s Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

This is depends on the form of government chosen... Of the 6 Arab Nations that took direct part in the attack on Israel (a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY) in 1948 - they are all sovereign states:

• Lebanon is a REPUBLIC: gaining independence from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
• Syria is a REPUBLIC under an authoritarian regime; now in Civil War heading toward instability and chaos.
• Jordan is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY having gained independence from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946.
• Egypt is a REPUBLIC having gained independence as a British Protectorate on 8 February 1922; but after revolutions begging in 1952 - and ending with a return to the REPUBLIC after British Forces are withdrawn.
• Iraq is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY first gaining independence from the British Mandate on 3 October 1932. After several coup d'état was - sovereignty was again transferred by Coalition Provisional Authority on 28 June 2004 to the Iraqi Interim Government. There is still a troubling conflict in Iraq and the final government undecided.
• Saudi Arabia is a MONARCHY over a Kingdom unified in September 1932.
​

"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation." Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia Iran, and China are all forms of "dictatorship" in which virtually no power rests with the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

I did answer your question. You should have already known the answer.

But then you turn around to tow Israel's line.

Obviously you missed it. There was not a single mention of Israel in Rocco's post.

It's just buffoonish to spam threads with your silly one-liners when you have no cogent response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did this answer my question? (No!)

Well, we would come to hope for that to happen. But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

racialreality9, et al,

This says nothing.

Of course the Palestinians can govern Palestine, it belongs to them. Not to the Jewish occupiers.

(COMMENT)

Governance and ownership --- have no relationship. I own my property, but it is sovereignty territory to the US; which does not own my property. This is not a real estate deal.

(QUESTION)

When did "ANY" territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian come under occupation by the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People’s Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

This is depends on the form of government chosen... Of the 6 Arab Nations that took direct part in the attack on Israel (a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY) in 1948 - they are all sovereign states:

• Lebanon is a REPUBLIC: gaining independence from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
• Syria is a REPUBLIC under an authoritarian regime; now in Civil War heading toward instability and chaos.
• Jordan is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY having gained independence from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946.
• Egypt is a REPUBLIC having gained independence as a British Protectorate on 8 February 1922; but after revolutions begging in 1952 - and ending with a return to the REPUBLIC after British Forces are withdrawn.
• Iraq is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY first gaining independence from the British Mandate on 3 October 1932. After several coup d'état was - sovereignty was again transferred by Coalition Provisional Authority on 28 June 2004 to the Iraqi Interim Government. There is still a troubling conflict in Iraq and the final government undecided.
• Saudi Arabia is a MONARCHY over a Kingdom unified in September 1932.
​

"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation." Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia Iran, and China are all forms of "dictatorship" in which virtually no power rests with the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.​

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.​

Not in Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you might be confused.

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

(COMMENT)

Makes no difference if the majority approves or not. There is a list of "Countries Ruled by Dictatorship." They are all sovereign. Whether the people want it or not, sovereignty is held by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea every bit as much as the Grand Ayatollah, Commander-in-Chief of Iran and Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Make no mistake, they are both sovereign nations.[/quote]

​

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

(COMMENT)

Customary and International law generally recognizes only two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view most often seen and is a very near opposite to the more favored “constitutive” view.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice

• The declaratory theory looks to the purported state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine if it can access the international plane.

• The constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state.
​

It looks like to me that you are describing a new kind of "sovereignty" called "true sovereignty." I have seen people that are locked onto the idea that single forms of government:

• powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people (Chapter 11: Sovereignty)
​

But this is generally true only (with trepidation I say this) in case of a "Democracy, a Republic, and in governments that incorporate the theory by Constitution." In about a quarter of the world, the sovereignty is held by the "Executive" or in some cases by the "Royal Court." As a Regional example being released from under the Mandate" "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan:"

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. London, 22nd March, 1946

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India , and His Highness The Ainir of Trans-Jordan;
ARTICLE 1.
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
​

Here we see an example in fact, and still valid today. where the Mandatory extends recognition that the Emir is the "sovereign of Trans-Jordan."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did this answer my question? (No!)

Well, we would come to hope for that to happen. But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

racialreality9, et al,

This says nothing.

Of course the Palestinians can govern Palestine, it belongs to them. Not to the Jewish occupiers.

(COMMENT)

Governance and ownership --- have no relationship. I own my property, but it is sovereignty territory to the US; which does not own my property. This is not a real estate deal.

(QUESTION)

When did "ANY" territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian come under occupation by the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People’s Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

This is depends on the form of government chosen... Of the 6 Arab Nations that took direct part in the attack on Israel (a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY) in 1948 - they are all sovereign states:

• Lebanon is a REPUBLIC: gaining independence from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
• Syria is a REPUBLIC under an authoritarian regime; now in Civil War heading toward instability and chaos.
• Jordan is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY having gained independence from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946.
• Egypt is a REPUBLIC having gained independence as a British Protectorate on 8 February 1922; but after revolutions begging in 1952 - and ending with a return to the REPUBLIC after British Forces are withdrawn.
• Iraq is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY first gaining independence from the British Mandate on 3 October 1932. After several coup d'état was - sovereignty was again transferred by Coalition Provisional Authority on 28 June 2004 to the Iraqi Interim Government. There is still a troubling conflict in Iraq and the final government undecided.
• Saudi Arabia is a MONARCHY over a Kingdom unified in September 1932.
​

"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation." Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia Iran, and China are all forms of "dictatorship" in which virtually no power rests with the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

I did answer your question. You should have already known the answer.

But then you turn around to tow Israel's line.

No you ducked as you always do and went of on a tangent rather than give a proper answer. You prefer to toe the islamonazi line as it meets with your Jew hatred POV and supports the lies you have been told and believe

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did this answer my question? (No!)

Well, we would come to hope for that to happen. But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

racialreality9, et al,

This says nothing.

Of course the Palestinians can govern Palestine, it belongs to them. Not to the Jewish occupiers.

(COMMENT)

Governance and ownership --- have no relationship. I own my property, but it is sovereignty territory to the US; which does not own my property. This is not a real estate deal.

(QUESTION)

When did "ANY" territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian come under occupation by the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People’s Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

This is depends on the form of government chosen... Of the 6 Arab Nations that took direct part in the attack on Israel (a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY) in 1948 - they are all sovereign states:

• Lebanon is a REPUBLIC: gaining independence from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
• Syria is a REPUBLIC under an authoritarian regime; now in Civil War heading toward instability and chaos.
• Jordan is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY having gained independence from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946.
• Egypt is a REPUBLIC having gained independence as a British Protectorate on 8 February 1922; but after revolutions begging in 1952 - and ending with a return to the REPUBLIC after British Forces are withdrawn.
• Iraq is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY first gaining independence from the British Mandate on 3 October 1932. After several coup d'état was - sovereignty was again transferred by Coalition Provisional Authority on 28 June 2004 to the Iraqi Interim Government. There is still a troubling conflict in Iraq and the final government undecided.
• Saudi Arabia is a MONARCHY over a Kingdom unified in September 1932.
​

"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation." Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia Iran, and China are all forms of "dictatorship" in which virtually no power rests with the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.​

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.​

Not in Israel.

Say's who, as you are not intelligent enough to make that distinction and all you have is what your islamonazi handlers tell you.
The government of gaza was imposed by force against the wishes of the majority and their disapproval, yet still you claim it is the valid legal government of gaza. When the people attempt to take back that sovereignty the dictators of hamas start to kill of the leaders of the dissenters. Then they attack Israel and place the followers in the line of fire as human shields as object lessons. But you refuse to see this and blame Israel for the deaths of thousands that are out of their hands.

 

[Hollie]

Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

There's no reason to believe there is an affirmative answer to that. The two rival tribes that are now in a position of political power have never shown any ability at managing the civil affairs of government. Both Hamas and fatah have greater concerns with skimming what they can from the UN sponsored welfare fraud program.

I see nothing that separates hamas or fatah from any of the other corrupt, totalitarian islamic misfits who hold a position of power in virtually all of the islamo-dysfunctional middle east.

I see no reason to believe that Hamas would, or couid, cobble together a functional government any more capable than what ISIS has managed to assemble.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you might be confused.

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

(COMMENT)

Makes no difference if the majority approves or not. There is a list of "Countries Ruled by Dictatorship." They are all sovereign. Whether the people want it or not, sovereignty is held by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea every bit as much as the Grand Ayatollah, Commander-in-Chief of Iran and Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Make no mistake, they are both sovereign nations.

​

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

(COMMENT)

Customary and International law generally recognizes only two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view most often seen and is a very near opposite to the more favored “constitutive” view.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice

• The declaratory theory looks to the purported state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine if it can access the international plane.

• The constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state.
​

It looks like to me that you are describing a new kind of "sovereignty" called "true sovereignty." I have seen people that are locked onto the idea that single forms of government:

• powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people (Chapter 11: Sovereignty)
​

But this is generally true only (with trepidation I say this) in case of a "Democracy, a Republic, and in governments that incorporate the theory by Constitution." In about a quarter of the world, the sovereignty is held by the "Executive" or in some cases by the "Royal Court." As a Regional example being released from under the Mandate" "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan:"

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. London, 22nd March, 1946

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India , and His Highness The Ainir of Trans-Jordan;
ARTICLE 1.
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
​

Here we see an example in fact, and still valid today. where the Mandatory extends recognition that the Emir is the "sovereign of Trans-Jordan."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will. In constitutional government, it is the people ruling through a body of law that is sovereign. That is the version that commands legitimacy most commonly in the world today.​

That is similar to my previous post that you have not refuted.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you might be confused.

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

(COMMENT)

Makes no difference if the majority approves or not. There is a list of "Countries Ruled by Dictatorship." They are all sovereign. Whether the people want it or not, sovereignty is held by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea every bit as much as the Grand Ayatollah, Commander-in-Chief of Iran and Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Make no mistake, they are both sovereign nations.

​

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

(COMMENT)

Customary and International law generally recognizes only two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view most often seen and is a very near opposite to the more favored “constitutive” view.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice

• The declaratory theory looks to the purported state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine if it can access the international plane.

• The constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state.
​

It looks like to me that you are describing a new kind of "sovereignty" called "true sovereignty." I have seen people that are locked onto the idea that single forms of government:

• powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people (Chapter 11: Sovereignty)
​

But this is generally true only (with trepidation I say this) in case of a "Democracy, a Republic, and in governments that incorporate the theory by Constitution." In about a quarter of the world, the sovereignty is held by the "Executive" or in some cases by the "Royal Court." As a Regional example being released from under the Mandate" "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan:"

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. London, 22nd March, 1946

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India , and His Highness The Ainir of Trans-Jordan;
ARTICLE 1.
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
​

Here we see an example in fact, and still valid today. where the Mandatory extends recognition that the Emir is the "sovereign of Trans-Jordan."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will. In constitutional government, it is the people ruling through a body of law that is sovereign. That is the version that commands legitimacy most commonly in the world today.​

That is similar to my previous post that you have not refuted.

The error you make is using a cut and paste snippet, out of context, and imagining it serves to bolster an argument.

As it applies to your invention of Pal'istan, you need reminding that this invented place was not a state and there was no form of representative government that ruled through their (the people / people's) general will.

Secondly, the "version" you ascribe to obviously complicates the notion of sovereignty as applied to the two competing Pal'istans (hamas'istan and fatah'istan). "Collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will", is a bit of a stretch with regard to the Arab-Moslem terrorist dictatorships of Hamas and Fatah. There are practical matters to consider when attempting to add the label "state" to either Gaza or the West Bank and even far greater unresolved issues when attempting to apply the "... ruling through their general will", label.

Terms such as democracy, representative governments and the governed 'ruling through their general will tend to lose association to their intrinsic meaning when applied to armed Islamic terrorist encampments. It's difficult to make a case for a population ruling through their collective will when that populace has no voice in representative elections.

When was it that the Arabs-Moslems in either Gaza'istan or Fatah'istan were allowed by the ruling dictators to vote in elections?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you might be confused.

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

(COMMENT)

Makes no difference if the majority approves or not. There is a list of "Countries Ruled by Dictatorship." They are all sovereign. Whether the people want it or not, sovereignty is held by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea every bit as much as the Grand Ayatollah, Commander-in-Chief of Iran and Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Make no mistake, they are both sovereign nations.

​

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

(COMMENT)

Customary and International law generally recognizes only two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view most often seen and is a very near opposite to the more favored “constitutive” view.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice

• The declaratory theory looks to the purported state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine if it can access the international plane.

• The constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state.
​

It looks like to me that you are describing a new kind of "sovereignty" called "true sovereignty." I have seen people that are locked onto the idea that single forms of government:

• powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people (Chapter 11: Sovereignty)
​

But this is generally true only (with trepidation I say this) in case of a "Democracy, a Republic, and in governments that incorporate the theory by Constitution." In about a quarter of the world, the sovereignty is held by the "Executive" or in some cases by the "Royal Court." As a Regional example being released from under the Mandate" "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan:"

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. London, 22nd March, 1946

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India , and His Highness The Ainir of Trans-Jordan;
ARTICLE 1.
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
​

Here we see an example in fact, and still valid today. where the Mandatory extends recognition that the Emir is the "sovereign of Trans-Jordan."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will. In constitutional government, it is the people ruling through a body of law that is sovereign. That is the version that commands legitimacy most commonly in the world today.​

That is similar to my previous post that you have not refuted.

The error you make is using a cut and paste snippet, out of context, and imagining it serves to bolster an argument.

As it applies to your invention of Pal'istan, you need reminding that this invented place was not a state and there was no form of representative government that ruled through their (the people / people's) general will.

Secondly, the "version" you ascribe to obviously complicates the notion of sovereignty as applied to the two competing Pal'istans (hamas'istan and fatah'istan). "Collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will", is a bit of a stretch with regard to the Arab-Moslem terrorist dictatorships of Hamas and Fatah. There are practical matters to consider when attempting to add the label "state" to either Gaza or the West Bank and even far greater unresolved issues when attempting to apply the "... ruling through their general will", label.

Terms such as democracy, representative governments and the governed 'ruling through their general will tend to lose association to their intrinsic meaning when applied to armed Islamic terrorist encampments. It's difficult to make a case for a population ruling through their collective will when that populace has no voice in representative elections.

When was it that the Arabs-Moslems in either Gaza'istan or Fatah'istan were allowed by the ruling dictators to vote in elections?

Guided​

by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, if you read the text, just because the situation is one of the many Democracy types, or a Republic types, does not mean that the sovereignty rests in the hands of the citizenry (the people).

But is is very true that when you have such a condition, where the sovereignty does rest with the people, it is only one type of sovereignty.

Thanks for the link.

Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will. In constitutional government, it is the people ruling through a body of law that is sovereign. That is the version that commands legitimacy most commonly in the world today.​

That is similar to my previous post that you have not refuted.

(COMMENT)

Like I said, a Dictatorships or a Monarchys are also a sovereign government. But the sovereignty of a Dictatorship or a Monarchy does not rest with the people. And, the sovereignty of a Dictatorship or a Monarchy is just as "true" as the one you suggest.

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

(COMMENT)

You sound like you are suggesting that to be considered a "true sovereignty," the sovereignty must belong to the people. TO REFUTE: That is simply NOT a true statement. Sovereignty is not dependent on the people hold the sovereign power; it is an invalid and unsound deductive argument.

It is not uncommon to see the pro-Palestinian advocates present non-sequitor judgments; for example that is unsound and invalid, but the conclusion is true:

• non-sequitor:
  
  • The Curse of the Bambino will never end. (F)
  • Sputnik was launched by China. (F)
  • --------------------------------------------------------
  • Therefore, en-passant is a move in chess. (T)

Notice that the Premises are false; but the Conclusion is true. Also notice that the P1 has no association to P2, and neither P1 (Baseball Superstition) or P2 (Sputnik was launched by the USSR) have a relationship to the Conclusion (Chess Move).

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy and China is a embryonic Communist State. Each are sovereign powers and each the sovereignty is not in the hands of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you might be confused.

But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.

What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?

(COMMENT)

Makes no difference if the majority approves or not. There is a list of "Countries Ruled by Dictatorship." They are all sovereign. Whether the people want it or not, sovereignty is held by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea every bit as much as the Grand Ayatollah, Commander-in-Chief of Iran and Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Make no mistake, they are both sovereign nations.

​

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

(COMMENT)

Customary and International law generally recognizes only two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view most often seen and is a very near opposite to the more favored “constitutive” view.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice

• The declaratory theory looks to the purported state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine if it can access the international plane.

• The constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state.
​

It looks like to me that you are describing a new kind of "sovereignty" called "true sovereignty." I have seen people that are locked onto the idea that single forms of government:

• powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people (Chapter 11: Sovereignty)
​

But this is generally true only (with trepidation I say this) in case of a "Democracy, a Republic, and in governments that incorporate the theory by Constitution." In about a quarter of the world, the sovereignty is held by the "Executive" or in some cases by the "Royal Court." As a Regional example being released from under the Mandate" "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan:"

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. London, 22nd March, 1946

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India , and His Highness The Ainir of Trans-Jordan;
ARTICLE 1.
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
​

Here we see an example in fact, and still valid today. where the Mandatory extends recognition that the Emir is the "sovereign of Trans-Jordan."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will. In constitutional government, it is the people ruling through a body of law that is sovereign. That is the version that commands legitimacy most commonly in the world today.​

That is similar to my previous post that you have not refuted.

The error you make is using a cut and paste snippet, out of context, and imagining it serves to bolster an argument.

As it applies to your invention of Pal'istan, you need reminding that this invented place was not a state and there was no form of representative government that ruled through their (the people / people's) general will.

Secondly, the "version" you ascribe to obviously complicates the notion of sovereignty as applied to the two competing Pal'istans (hamas'istan and fatah'istan). "Collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will", is a bit of a stretch with regard to the Arab-Moslem terrorist dictatorships of Hamas and Fatah. There are practical matters to consider when attempting to add the label "state" to either Gaza or the West Bank and even far greater unresolved issues when attempting to apply the "... ruling through their general will", label.

Terms such as democracy, representative governments and the governed 'ruling through their general will tend to lose association to their intrinsic meaning when applied to armed Islamic terrorist encampments. It's difficult to make a case for a population ruling through their collective will when that populace has no voice in representative elections.

When was it that the Arabs-Moslems in either Gaza'istan or Fatah'istan were allowed by the ruling dictators to vote in elections?

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

What's interesting is the foreword you chose not to cut and paste:

"Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one."

The above was applied to the concept of an Islamic terrorist enclave seeking "statehood", something the now competing Islamic terrorist enclaves have still, argusbly, not achieved.

However, aside from your long cut and paste non sequitor, we still have: "It's difficult to make a case for a population ruling through their collective will when that populace has no voice in representative elections."

You still have not identified how "peoples" (remember peoples?) can achieve sovereignty without a collective will (an attribute never demonstrated by the peoples (remember people's?), in the geographic region called Pal'istan.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is subterfuge.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely true... Again you are playing games.

(a) The Palestinians have NEVER been denied their right of self-determination. They have exercised it nearly a half-dozen times or more.

(b) The Palestinian People have declared independence (1988); however, the Palestinians never actually achieved territory it exclusively controls; with Area "A" of the West Bank (1995) and the Gaza Strip (2005).
​

The Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination three time by 1923 when it declined participatory positions within the government

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declined to participate in the development in a UNSCOP Recommendations.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to reject A/RES/181(II).

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and voted for Annexation.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to attempt a coup d'état when they attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Monarchy.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declared independent in 1988.

What the Palestinians have not done is to attempt to build a thriving and productive nation. The The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they constantly chose the use force to attempt to achieve a politically outcome which they could not achieve through peacefully means.

Even today, the Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to engage in peace talks pursuant to the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to accept the consequences for their Hostile Actions, Jihadism, Terrorism, insurgencies, rebellion and other asymmetric activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is subterfuge.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely true... Again you are playing games.

(a) The Palestinians have NEVER been denied their right of self-determination. They have exercised it nearly a half-dozen times or more.

(b) The Palestinian People have declared independence (1988); however, the Palestinians never actually achieved territory it exclusively controls; with Area "A" of the West Bank (1995) and the Gaza Strip (2005).
​

The Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination three time by 1923 when it declined participatory positions within the government

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declined to participate in the development in a UNSCOP Recommendations.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to reject A/RES/181(II).

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and voted for Annexation.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to attempt a coup d'état when they attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Monarchy.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declared independent in 1988.

What the Palestinians have not done is to attempt to build a thriving and productive nation. The The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they constantly chose the use force to attempt to achieve a politically outcome which they could not achieve through peacefully means.

Even today, the Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to engage in peace talks pursuant to the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to accept the consequences for their Hostile Actions, Jihadism, Terrorism, insurgencies, rebellion and other asymmetric activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN merely states Palestinian rights. It says "without external interference." Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It has been occupied every day since its inception.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is subterfuge.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely true... Again you are playing games.

(a) The Palestinians have NEVER been denied their right of self-determination. They have exercised it nearly a half-dozen times or more.

(b) The Palestinian People have declared independence (1988); however, the Palestinians never actually achieved territory it exclusively controls; with Area "A" of the West Bank (1995) and the Gaza Strip (2005).
​

The Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination three time by 1923 when it declined participatory positions within the government

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declined to participate in the development in a UNSCOP Recommendations.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to reject A/RES/181(II).

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and voted for Annexation.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to attempt a coup d'état when they attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Monarchy.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declared independent in 1988.

What the Palestinians have not done is to attempt to build a thriving and productive nation. The The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they constantly chose the use force to attempt to achieve a politically outcome which they could not achieve through peacefully means.

Even today, the Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to engage in peace talks pursuant to the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to accept the consequences for their Hostile Actions, Jihadism, Terrorism, insurgencies, rebellion and other asymmetric activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN merely states Palestinian rights. It says "without external interference." Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It has been occupied every day since its inception.

Your invention of this mythical Pal'istan is really remarkable. It is likely useless at this point to remind you that the magical place you have invented was, in reality, a geographic area. I hesitate to use the term "in reality" because you have invented an entire worldview around a place that "in reality", never had an inception.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is subterfuge.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely true... Again you are playing games.

(a) The Palestinians have NEVER been denied their right of self-determination. They have exercised it nearly a half-dozen times or more.

(b) The Palestinian People have declared independence (1988); however, the Palestinians never actually achieved territory it exclusively controls; with Area "A" of the West Bank (1995) and the Gaza Strip (2005).
​

The Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination three time by 1923 when it declined participatory positions within the government

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declined to participate in the development in a UNSCOP Recommendations.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to reject A/RES/181(II).

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and voted for Annexation.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to attempt a coup d'état when they attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Monarchy.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declared independent in 1988.

What the Palestinians have not done is to attempt to build a thriving and productive nation. The The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they constantly chose the use force to attempt to achieve a politically outcome which they could not achieve through peacefully means.

Even today, the Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to engage in peace talks pursuant to the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to accept the consequences for their Hostile Actions, Jihadism, Terrorism, insurgencies, rebellion and other asymmetric activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN merely states Palestinian rights. It says "without external interference." Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It has been occupied every day since its inception.

Your invention of this mythical Pal'istan is really remarkable. It is likely useless at this point to remind you that the magical place you have invented was, in reality, a geographic area. I hesitate to use the term "in reality" because you have invented an entire worldview around a place that "in reality", never had an inception.

To say the there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians is an Israeli propaganda campaign and there is no evidence to support that claim.

 

[theliq]

SAYIT, et al,

This is very applicable to the "Question of Palestine." Certainly nothing about the range of possible answers is a given.

Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

• it illustrates the failure of Palestinians to establish an electoral democracy and a genuinely functional state.
• Fatah correctly sees cooperation with Israel and the international community as the path to an independent state.
• Hamas sees the destruction of Israel as the only solution.
​

(COMMENT)

There are some huge chunks of considerations that need to be addressed.

• The "knowledge, skills, and abilities," (KSAs) to actually form a collection of personnel that can handle the functions of government.

∆ The knowledge being the experience or education in practical understanding of a governance.
∆ The skills in the performance of specific tasks that render a desired results --- within a given amount of time, energy, and fiscal limitations.
∆ The abilities the varied physical capacities and the essential materials to necessary to assemble a functioning entity.
​

• A citizenry that actually "wants" to exert the effort to assemble a self-governing, autonomous nation. Or, one nation (Palestine) with two autonomous Provinces (The West Bank and Gaza Strip); the union these two entities as a single sovereign state.​

If the Palestinians really "wanted" a measure of autonomy, surely they would have been able to demonstrate that sometime during the last 70 years. The fact of the matter is that they have set the political and diplomatic conditions necessary to achieve that goal. The fact that they have not means that either they:

• Do not have the prerequisite KSAs to accomplish the establishment of government.
• Do not have the motivation to establish the government.
• Do not have either KSAs or the motivation to create a functional government.
​

The international community can build a KSA base from which the prerequisites could establish an autonomous government. But it is impossible to inject motivation and leadership when the mindset of the Arab Palestinian is pointed in a hostile direction:

The High Commissioner wishing the Advisory Council to approximate as closely as possible to the abortive Legislative council, proposed to reconstitute it on the lines suggested for the latter body, that is to say with 10 officials and 8 Moslem, 2 Christians and 2 Jewish Palestinians. But of the 10 Arabs whom he nominated, 7 withdrew their acceptance under political pressure. The High Commissioner did not wish to replace them with men of less standing. It thus proved impossible to constitute a representative Advisory Council.

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

The UN Palestine Commission asked the Arab Delegation for representation in early 1948. Of course the answer was "no."

"You can lead a horse to water --- but you can't make it drink, swim or snorkel."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT YOU CAN LEAD YOUR HORSE TO MURDER,SLAUGHTER,EXILE Palestinians and STEAL THEIR LAND....Yours Comment IS DEBASED Rocco and therefore only SUITABLE FOR THE DUSTBIN.....MORE ZIONIST TRASH asshole

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is subterfuge.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely true... Again you are playing games.

(a) The Palestinians have NEVER been denied their right of self-determination. They have exercised it nearly a half-dozen times or more.

(b) The Palestinian People have declared independence (1988); however, the Palestinians never actually achieved territory it exclusively controls; with Area "A" of the West Bank (1995) and the Gaza Strip (2005).
​

The Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination three time by 1923 when it declined participatory positions within the government

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declined to participate in the development in a UNSCOP Recommendations.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to reject A/RES/181(II).

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and voted for Annexation.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they decided to attempt a coup d'état when they attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Monarchy.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they declared independent in 1988.

What the Palestinians have not done is to attempt to build a thriving and productive nation. The The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they constantly chose the use force to attempt to achieve a politically outcome which they could not achieve through peacefully means.

Even today, the Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to engage in peace talks pursuant to the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

The Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination when they refuse to accept the consequences for their Hostile Actions, Jihadism, Terrorism, insurgencies, rebellion and other asymmetric activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN merely states Palestinian rights. It says "without external interference." Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It has been occupied every day since its inception.

Your invention of this mythical Pal'istan is really remarkable. It is likely useless at this point to remind you that the magical place you have invented was, in reality, a geographic area. I hesitate to use the term "in reality" because you have invented an entire worldview around a place that "in reality", never had an inception.

Holliie actually the Zionist Shit in Israel have not allowed the Palestinians to build a vibrant and productive nation........the only invention here is Zionism and shitty members of this CRACK POT ORGANIZATION