France to Recognise Palestinian State

[P F Tinmore]

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

This is a point of negotiation to be addressed by the parties to the dispute (Israel 'v' Palestinian).

An interesting move by the French...

France to recognise Palestinian state if deadlock with Israel not broken

Like I said before:

France had a responsibility to try to keep up efforts to find a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.​

Everyone is recognizing Palestine as part of the defunct two state solution.

Let there be a " Two State Solution " without returning to the 67 Borders and " Right of Return".

(COMMENT)

The "Two-State" solution was opposed and rejected by the Arab Higher Committee and Delegation in early 1948. It was a point of dispute in all the wars since. And the "two-State" solution is not a common position held by all Palestinians (maybe not even a majority). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department clearly talks about the "Two-State" solution. However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate (HAMAS Policy Position 2012).

This is a matter for the Israelis to decide, once they can get a seat at the Peace Table. A necessary first step.

Most Respectfully,
R

However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate​

Indeed, and Israel does not want that up for debate.

What should be up for debate? That Israel should not exist in any part of the former Palestine Mandate?

The Palestine Mandate was not a place.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure why you would say that! I would suspect that Palestine would have uneasiness.

However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate​

​

Indeed, and Israel does not want that up for debate.

(COMMENT)

Israel has de jure recognition; whereas Palestine has de facto recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

There you go again.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

This is a point of negotiation to be addressed by the parties to the dispute (Israel 'v' Palestinian).

Like I said before:

France had a responsibility to try to keep up efforts to find a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.​

Everyone is recognizing Palestine as part of the defunct two state solution.

Let there be a " Two State Solution " without returning to the 67 Borders and " Right of Return".

(COMMENT)

The "Two-State" solution was opposed and rejected by the Arab Higher Committee and Delegation in early 1948. It was a point of dispute in all the wars since. And the "two-State" solution is not a common position held by all Palestinians (maybe not even a majority). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department clearly talks about the "Two-State" solution. However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate (HAMAS Policy Position 2012).

This is a matter for the Israelis to decide, once they can get a seat at the Peace Table. A necessary first step.

Most Respectfully,
R

However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate​

Indeed, and Israel does not want that up for debate.

What should be up for debate? That Israel should not exist in any part of the former Palestine Mandate?

The Palestine Mandate was not a place.

(COMMENT)

For you Palestinians, our friend "ForeverYoung436" really means is the "territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

There you go again.

ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

This is a point of negotiation to be addressed by the parties to the dispute (Israel 'v' Palestinian).

Let there be a " Two State Solution " without returning to the 67 Borders and " Right of Return".

(COMMENT)

The "Two-State" solution was opposed and rejected by the Arab Higher Committee and Delegation in early 1948. It was a point of dispute in all the wars since. And the "two-State" solution is not a common position held by all Palestinians (maybe not even a majority). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department clearly talks about the "Two-State" solution. However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate (HAMAS Policy Position 2012).

This is a matter for the Israelis to decide, once they can get a seat at the Peace Table. A necessary first step.

Most Respectfully,
R

However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate​

Indeed, and Israel does not want that up for debate.

What should be up for debate? That Israel should not exist in any part of the former Palestine Mandate?

The Palestine Mandate was not a place.

(COMMENT)

For you Palestinians, our friend "ForeverYoung436" really means is the "territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Most Respectfully,
R

Misleading remark. The Mandate was not a place. It had no territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure why you would say that! I would suspect that Palestine would have uneasiness.

However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate​

​

Indeed, and Israel does not want that up for debate.

(COMMENT)

Israel has de jure recognition; whereas Palestine has de facto recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel always says it has legitimacy but it does not want to have to prove it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For you Palestinians, our friend "ForeverYoung436" really means is the "territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Misleading remark. The Mandate was not a place. It had no territory.

(COMMENT)

Palestine, before the Mandate ended, was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as "that territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Israel has de jure recognition; whereas Palestine has de facto recognition.​

Israel always says it has legitimacy but it does not want to have to prove it.

(COMMENT)

All that is required is UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission to the UN.

But in state practice, “definiteness of territory is not held a sine qua non (not held a thing that is absolutely necessary) for recognition purposes, as it is evident in the case of Israel which was recognized immediately upon its independence on May 14 1948 by America despite border territory contests and uncertainty.

The State of Palestine is not fully recognized as a state (de facto or temporary), and thus, has observer status in the UN.
The State of Israel has full recognition (de jure or permanent), thus full membership in the UN.
​

It does not matter what the Palestinians think, understand believe or otherwise reject. The fact of the matter is, that the Legitimacy of the State of Israel is that it was formally recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R[

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For you Palestinians, our friend "ForeverYoung436" really means is the "territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Misleading remark. The Mandate was not a place. It had no territory.

(COMMENT)

Palestine, before the Mandate ended, was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as "that territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Israel has de jure recognition; whereas Palestine has de facto recognition.​

Israel always says it has legitimacy but it does not want to have to prove it.

(COMMENT)

All that is required is UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission to the UN.

But in state practice, “definiteness of territory is not held a sine qua non (not held a thing that is absolutely necessary) for recognition purposes, as it is evident in the case of Israel which was recognized immediately upon its independence on May 14 1948 by America despite border territory contests and uncertainty.

The State of Palestine is not fully recognized as a state (de facto or temporary), and thus, has observer status in the UN.
The State of Israel has full recognition (de jure or permanent), thus full membership in the UN.
​

It does not matter what the Palestinians think, understand believe or otherwise reject. The fact of the matter is, that the Legitimacy of the State of Israel is that it was formally recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R[

The UN can only offer political recognition. It cannot legitimize or delegitimize any state.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have this backwards.

P F Tinmore, et al,

For you Palestinians, our friend "ForeverYoung436" really means is the "territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Misleading remark. The Mandate was not a place. It had no territory.

(COMMENT)

Palestine, before the Mandate ended, was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as "that territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Israel has de jure recognition; whereas Palestine has de facto recognition.​

Israel always says it has legitimacy but it does not want to have to prove it.

(COMMENT)

All that is required is UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission to the UN.

But in state practice, “definiteness of territory is not held a sine qua non (not held a thing that is absolutely necessary) for recognition purposes, as it is evident in the case of Israel which was recognized immediately upon its independence on May 14 1948 by America despite border territory contests and uncertainty.

The State of Palestine is not fully recognized as a state (de facto or temporary), and thus, has observer status in the UN.
The State of Israel has full recognition (de jure or permanent), thus full membership in the UN.
​

It does not matter what the Palestinians think, understand believe or otherwise reject. The fact of the matter is, that the Legitimacy of the State of Israel is that it was formally recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R[

The UN can only offer political recognition. It cannot legitimize or delegitimize any state.

(COMMENT)

Legitimacy and Illegitimacy have no direct connection to Recognition (Political or Diplomatic). Recognition is merely a matter of evidence into the subjective opinion as to whether a regime is legitimate or illegitimate.

RECOGNITION (Source: US Diplomatic Dictionary)
Commonly used in connection with the recognition by one state of the existence of another state (for example when a new one is formed), or the existence of a government which is in effective control of a state.
​

Diplomatic recognition is a unilateral political act with domestic and international legal consequences, whereby a state acknowledges an act or status of another state or government in control of a state (may be also a recognized state). Recognition can be accorded either de facto or de jure.

Recognition can be a declaration to that effect by the recognizing government, or an act of recognition such as entering into a treaty with the other state. A vote by a country in the United Nations in favour of the membership of another country is an implicit recognition of that country by the country so voting, as only states may be members of the UN.
Editing Diplomatic recognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The non-recognition of particular acts of a state does not normally effect the recognition of the state itself. For example, the international rejection of the occupation of particular territory by a recognised state does not imply non-recognition of the state itself, nor a rejection of a change of government by illegal means.​

The UN can, in point of fact, established both evidence of recognition by membership vote, and it can directly establish "Diplomatic Recognition" (not the same as political as you hypothesize).

An example of "Political Recognition" is the exchange of letters in which the PLO Recognized the right of Israel to exist. Made in connection with the Oslo Accords.

Don't confuse the Concept of "Legitimacy" with the Concept of "Recognition." They do not have a dependent relationship; but they can mutually support each other.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have this backwards.

P F Tinmore, et al,

For you Palestinians, our friend "ForeverYoung436" really means is the "territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Misleading remark. The Mandate was not a place. It had no territory.

(COMMENT)

Palestine, before the Mandate ended, was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as "that territory to which the Mandate Applied."

Israel has de jure recognition; whereas Palestine has de facto recognition.​

Israel always says it has legitimacy but it does not want to have to prove it.

(COMMENT)

All that is required is UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission to the UN.

But in state practice, “definiteness of territory is not held a sine qua non (not held a thing that is absolutely necessary) for recognition purposes, as it is evident in the case of Israel which was recognized immediately upon its independence on May 14 1948 by America despite border territory contests and uncertainty.

The State of Palestine is not fully recognized as a state (de facto or temporary), and thus, has observer status in the UN.
The State of Israel has full recognition (de jure or permanent), thus full membership in the UN.
​

It does not matter what the Palestinians think, understand believe or otherwise reject. The fact of the matter is, that the Legitimacy of the State of Israel is that it was formally recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R[

The UN can only offer political recognition. It cannot legitimize or delegitimize any state.

(COMMENT)

Legitimacy and Illegitimacy have no direct connection to Recognition (Political or Diplomatic). Recognition is merely a matter of evidence into the subjective opinion as to whether a regime is legitimate or illegitimate.

RECOGNITION (Source: US Diplomatic Dictionary)
Commonly used in connection with the recognition by one state of the existence of another state (for example when a new one is formed), or the existence of a government which is in effective control of a state.
​

Diplomatic recognition is a unilateral political act with domestic and international legal consequences, whereby a state acknowledges an act or status of another state or government in control of a state (may be also a recognized state). Recognition can be accorded either de facto or de jure.

Recognition can be a declaration to that effect by the recognizing government, or an act of recognition such as entering into a treaty with the other state. A vote by a country in the United Nations in favour of the membership of another country is an implicit recognition of that country by the country so voting, as only states may be members of the UN.
Editing Diplomatic recognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The non-recognition of particular acts of a state does not normally effect the recognition of the state itself. For example, the international rejection of the occupation of particular territory by a recognised state does not imply non-recognition of the state itself, nor a rejection of a change of government by illegal means.​

The UN can, in point of fact, established both evidence of recognition by membership vote, and it can directly establish "Diplomatic Recognition" (not the same as political as you hypothesize).

An example of "Political Recognition" is the exchange of letters in which the PLO Recognized the right of Israel to exist. Made in connection with the Oslo Accords.

Don't confuse the Concept of "Legitimacy" with the Concept of "Recognition." They do not have a dependent relationship; but they can mutually support each other.

Most Respectfully,
R

Recognition and legitimacy are different things. One does not denote the other.

I stand by my previous post.

 

[USAF 2023]

Care to respond to the actual point I was trying to make?

What's the idea of threatening Israel with negotiation, if anyhow they promise the Palestinian whatever they want?

Ask what the Palestinians have put forth to " negotiate" and there will be more spines.

 

[montelatici]

Is there really anything for the Palestinians to negotiate? The Israeli leadership has stated that there will not be a Palestinian state. Perhaps after the current leadership goes off watch, there could be something to negotiate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Care to respond to the actual point I was trying to make?

What's the idea of threatening Israel with negotiation, if anyhow they promise the Palestinian whatever they want?

Ask what the Palestinians have put forth to " negotiate" and there will be more spines.

How many of your inalienable rights would you want somebody to negotiate away?

 

[USAF 2023]

Is there really anything for the Palestinians to negotiate? The Israeli leadership has stated that there will not be a Palestinian state. Perhaps after the current leadership goes off watch, there could be something to negotiate.

Tell us please what proposals the Palestinians have brought to the table. There will be no response

 

[USAF 2023]

Care to respond to the actual point I was trying to make?

What's the idea of threatening Israel with negotiation, if anyhow they promise the Palestinian whatever they want?

Ask what the Palestinians have put forth to " negotiate" and there will be more spines.

How many of your inalienable rights would you want somebody to negotiate away?

He says the same thing every time. Why would Israel be psychotic enough to give in to every demand and eventually annex itself to the Palestinian State? The Palestinians are the problem

 

[P F Tinmore]

Care to respond to the actual point I was trying to make?

What's the idea of threatening Israel with negotiation, if anyhow they promise the Palestinian whatever they want?

Ask what the Palestinians have put forth to " negotiate" and there will be more spines.

How many of your inalienable rights would you want somebody to negotiate away?

He says the same thing every time. Why would Israel be psychotic enough to give in to every demand and eventually annex itself to the Palestinian State? The Palestinians are the problem

Deflection.

Nobody has the right to deny rights to others.