Gaza army

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" is not unique to the Arab Palestinians; it is a basic (jus cogens) rule. It is a "higher law" which must be followed by all. It is a concept within international law that is a peremptory norm, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

(COMMENT)

The LINK: Chapter I - Article 1(2) of the UN Charter (1945). This is the basic law cited in the Preamble of the Convention on Treaty Law, and in General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) again in General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) "convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law;" and as a cornerstone in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed by the General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) (1966): "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development."

• 
  "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."

The idea that the "right of self-determination" would be denied to the Jewish People is absolutely absurd. What is even more absurd is the fact that the very same General Assembly Resolution that was invoked by the Palestinians to Declare Independence --- "the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947" [that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II)] was in the document the Jewish People used in the "Step Preparatory to Independence."

Most Respectfully,
R

By the way Rocco,I was just teasing on my post above,I actually value your insightful posts......so I apologise for my post...but you know what I'm like LOL steve

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

And those resolutions have no powers in law as they are just recommendations. Whereas the Jews have international laws on their side that empower them to claim and hold all of the west bank and Jerusalem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

And those resolutions have no powers in law as they are just recommendations. Whereas the Jews have international laws on their side that empower them to claim and hold all of the west bank and Jerusalem.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" is not unique to the Arab Palestinians; it is a basic (jus cogens) rule. It is a "higher law" which must be followed by all. It is a concept within international law that is a peremptory norm, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

(COMMENT)

The LINK: Chapter I - Article 1(2) of the UN Charter (1945). This is the basic law cited in the Preamble of the Convention on Treaty Law, and in General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) again in General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) "convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law;" and as a cornerstone in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed by the General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) (1966): "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development."

• 
  "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."

The idea that the "right of self-determination" would be denied to the Jewish People is absolutely absurd. What is even more absurd is the fact that the very same General Assembly Resolution that was invoked by the Palestinians to Declare Independence --- "the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947" [that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II)] was in the document the Jewish People used in the "Step Preparatory to Independence."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the links. They fit the Palestinians perfectly. The Jews not so much.

One term common among them is "peoples." What does that mean? I had previously asked for a definition but received no response.

People are categorized into groups based on nationality and citizenship inside defined territories. The French are "a people." The British are "a people. The Palestinians are "a People." These groups together are peoples.

The Jews, however, are defined by religion with many nationalities. They are not a people in the nationalistic sense.

When they use terms like the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, the right to territorial integrity, they are specifically referring to nations of people in defined territories not loose groups of people.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

And those resolutions have no powers in law as they are just recommendations. Whereas the Jews have international laws on their side that empower them to claim and hold all of the west bank and Jerusalem.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

Yes it did as the UNSC passed the resolution.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" is not unique to the Arab Palestinians; it is a basic (jus cogens) rule. It is a "higher law" which must be followed by all. It is a concept within international law that is a peremptory norm, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

(COMMENT)

The LINK: Chapter I - Article 1(2) of the UN Charter (1945). This is the basic law cited in the Preamble of the Convention on Treaty Law, and in General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) again in General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) "convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law;" and as a cornerstone in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed by the General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) (1966): "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development."

• 
  "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."

The idea that the "right of self-determination" would be denied to the Jewish People is absolutely absurd. What is even more absurd is the fact that the very same General Assembly Resolution that was invoked by the Palestinians to Declare Independence --- "the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947" [that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II)] was in the document the Jewish People used in the "Step Preparatory to Independence."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the links. They fit the Palestinians perfectly. The Jews not so much.

One term common among them is "peoples." What does that mean? I had previously asked for a definition but received no response.

People are categorized into groups based on nationality and citizenship inside defined territories. The French are "a people." The British are "a people. The Palestinians are "a People." These groups together are peoples.

The Jews, however, are defined by religion with many nationalities. They are not a people in the nationalistic sense.

When they use terms like the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, the right to territorial integrity, they are specifically referring to nations of people in defined territories not loose groups of people.

Get it right what you really mean is you did not get the definition that met with your approval because it applied to the Jews as well as the arab muslims.

Problem is that the Palestinians happen to also be Jews, Christians and other religions other than arab muslim. This means each one has a seperate claim to a nation. The arab muslims had already been granted 78% of Palestine leaving the Jews and Christians to have the other 22%.

The Jews always were and always will be a nation, and it is only islamonazi scum that try and take away that from them. The INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 enacted by the LoN clearly states that they would be granted the land for their national home, making them a people in the nationalistic sense.

When did the arab muslims ever have defined territories as they flit from one owner to the next like a fly round a communal toilet, handing their lands to them to do with as they please. They had two owners from 1948 till 1967, then none from 1967 till 1988.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

And those resolutions have no powers in law as they are just recommendations. Whereas the Jews have international laws on their side that empower them to claim and hold all of the west bank and Jerusalem.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

Yes it did as the UNSC passed the resolution.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In many regards, we'll have to agree to disagree.

One term common among them is "peoples." What does that mean? I had previously asked for a definition but received no response.

(COMMENT)

I think you alzheimer's symptom is getting the best of you. I've addressed this many times for you and even given you the UN Link to the Fact Sheet on: "Who are indigenous peoples?"

• Culture and Knowledge

Indigenous peoples are the holders of unique languages, knowledge systems and beliefs and possess invaluable knowledge of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources. They have a special relation to and use of their traditional land. Their ancestral land has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples. Indigenous peoples hold their own diverse concepts of development, based on their traditional values, visions, needs and priorities.​

Additionally, I'm sure, given the number of times you have used this particular ploy, that I have given you the U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) on the issue.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

(COMMENT)

You and the rest of the like-minded pro-Palestinians (different Palestinians from those that Declared Independence) can take that position if you want. The UN and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the sole representative of the Palestinian people), may have a different take on the matter.

• Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948: "The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
• A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988: Palestinian Declaration of Independence. "Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947."
• A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999: Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations. "For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become acorpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process."
• A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988: Question of Palestine. "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,"
• A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012: Status of Palestine in the UN. "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."
​

For something that "didn't happen," it sure got a lot of recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

theliq,

No need to apologize.

By the way Rocco,I was just teasing on my post above,I actually value your insightful posts......so I apologise for my post...but you know what I'm like LOL steve

(COMMENT)

I chalk it off to the passion of the debate; and the moment.

v/r
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

And those resolutions have no powers in law as they are just recommendations. Whereas the Jews have international laws on their side that empower them to claim and hold all of the west bank and Jerusalem.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

Yes it did as the UNSC passed the resolution.

Irrelevant as the Jews used the LoN mandate of Palestine and their right to free determination to declare the state of Israel. The UN had no say in the matter, and so the passing of 181 has no outcome on the situation.



Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications – that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it,
Resolution 181‟s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly‟s recommendation. Cambridge Professor, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, [In Latin: treaties must be honored – the first principle of international law] that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht explains: “The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence-especially when that existence is prolonged shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”12 Reviewing Lauterpacht‟s arguments, Professor Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel‟s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations‟ Partition Plan, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded: “The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”13



http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/10/Resolution-181.pdf

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

Yes, in the grand sense, our friend "Phoenall" is correct. The General Assembly Resolution 181(II) (Partition Plan) is not an separate authority in itself. The authority comes from the people (the Jewish Peoples right to self-determination), The Resolution had three key aspects to it.

First, it was a road map to independence; a recommended process by which the parties concerned, could establish independence that would be acceptable to the General Assembly. This road map was titled the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."

Second, if the parties agreed and followed the prescribed steps, then the UN agreed to give recognition to the states.

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS​

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.​

Third, the Resolution was never intended to be a "binding" resolution (a UN decree) by a mutually beneficial agreement between the agreement between the UN and the two parties (UN and the Arab State --- UN and Jewish State), and not an agreement binding between the UN and the two states of a binding agreement between the two states.

Irrelevant as the Jews used the LoN mandate of Palestine and their right to free determination to declare the state of Israel. The UN had no say in the matter, and so the passing of 181 has no outcome on the situation.

(COMMENT)

The binding application is that portion of the UN Charter that recognized that both the Arab and the Jewish people had the right to self-determination. What happened is that the Arabs rejected the notion that the Jewish People had a right equal to their own. That the land, surrendered to the Allied Powers, was somehow, by some right, their sovereign territory; theirs sovereignty and theirs alone. There is actually nothing to support that conclusion.

Further, it is to the State of Israel's advantage if the Arab Palestinians actually win the day in terms of the international legitimacy and respect General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), and its recommended guidance. If this were to be de-legitimized in terms of Israel and its Declaration of Independence, then it would be equally de-legitimized in terms of the Palestinian's Declaration of Independence; on which they state: "Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947;" a leg on which they base their independence.

Further, the de-legitimacy of the Resolution also then negates any May 1948 boundary assumption and thus, would no represent a limiting factor in the lost or gains of territory in respect to the outcome of the conflict in which the Israeli was the defender and the Arab were the attacking aggressor. The territory on which the Israeli assumed control was not an outcome of capture by conquest and/or war, but the outcome of a Civil War in which the Palestinians, claiming all of the former territory to which the Mandate Applied, challenged the immigrants for sovereignty and lost. In fact the Arab Palestinians still hold that claim; although not the territory.

More interesting is how the international legal community is going to define the nationality and citizenship of the Palestinians, given that many of them have lost nationality, and voluntarily acquired a new nationality, enjoyed the protection of the new nationality; THEN, declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In many regards, we'll have to agree to disagree.

One term common among them is "peoples." What does that mean? I had previously asked for a definition but received no response.

(COMMENT)

I think you alzheimer's symptom is getting the best of you. I've addressed this many times for you and even given you the UN Link to the Fact Sheet on: "Who are indigenous peoples?"

• Culture and Knowledge

Indigenous peoples are the holders of unique languages, knowledge systems and beliefs and possess invaluable knowledge of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources. They have a special relation to and use of their traditional land. Their ancestral land has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples. Indigenous peoples hold their own diverse concepts of development, based on their traditional values, visions, needs and priorities.​

Additionally, I'm sure, given the number of times you have used this particular ploy, that I have given you the U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) on the issue.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

(COMMENT)

You and the rest of the like-minded pro-Palestinians (different Palestinians from those that Declared Independence) can take that position if you want. The UN and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the sole representative of the Palestinian people), may have a different take on the matter.

• Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948: "The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
• A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988: Palestinian Declaration of Independence. "Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947."
• A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999: Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations. "For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become acorpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process."
• A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988: Question of Palestine. "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,"
• A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012: Status of Palestine in the UN. "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."
​

For something that "didn't happen," it sure got a lot of recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

I've addressed this many times for you...​

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In many regards, we'll have to agree to disagree.

One term common among them is "peoples." What does that mean? I had previously asked for a definition but received no response.

(COMMENT)

I think you alzheimer's symptom is getting the best of you. I've addressed this many times for you and even given you the UN Link to the Fact Sheet on: "Who are indigenous peoples?"

• Culture and Knowledge

Indigenous peoples are the holders of unique languages, knowledge systems and beliefs and possess invaluable knowledge of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources. They have a special relation to and use of their traditional land. Their ancestral land has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples. Indigenous peoples hold their own diverse concepts of development, based on their traditional values, visions, needs and priorities.​

Additionally, I'm sure, given the number of times you have used this particular ploy, that I have given you the U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) on the issue.

Like GA resolution 181. It recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security council never acted on resolution 181.

It didn't happen.

(COMMENT)

You and the rest of the like-minded pro-Palestinians (different Palestinians from those that Declared Independence) can take that position if you want. The UN and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the sole representative of the Palestinian people), may have a different take on the matter.

• Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948: "The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
• A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988: Palestinian Declaration of Independence. "Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947."
• A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999: Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations. "For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become acorpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process."
• A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988: Question of Palestine. "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,"
• A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012: Status of Palestine in the UN. "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."
​

For something that "didn't happen," it sure got a lot of recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

I've addressed this many times for you...​

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

Who says that they had to get the approval of the people, after they had been given the peoples approval to represent them. You are another of these semi literate Islamics that does not understand how politics work. They did not need the Palestinians people's approval as that was a foregone conclusion.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am not sure what you point is.

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that there is no application of the term "indigenous peoples" to the Palestinians?

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 that established "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated," has no legitimacy?

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

(COMMENT)

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years, that it hardly makes a difference what or how that leadership managed its administration over four decades ago. Governments evolve.

I ask again... What is your point? Be clear.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am not sure what you point is.

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that there is no application of the term "indigenous peoples" to the Palestinians?

No, I am just saying that those resolutions do not fit Palestine's situation. This is more applicable.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 that established "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated," has no legitimacy?

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

(COMMENT)

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years, that it hardly makes a difference what or how that leadership managed its administration over four decades ago. Governments evolve.

I ask again... What is your point? Be clear.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is that the Palestinians have never had much to do in choosing their own leaders. For the most part they have been imposed on them by outsiders. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am not sure what you point is.

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that there is no application of the term "indigenous peoples" to the Palestinians?

No, I am just saying that those resolutions do not fit Palestine's situation. This is more applicable.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 that established "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated," has no legitimacy?

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

(COMMENT)

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years, that it hardly makes a difference what or how that leadership managed its administration over four decades ago. Governments evolve.

I ask again... What is your point? Be clear.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is that the Palestinians have never had much to do in choosing their own leaders. For the most part they have been imposed on them by outsiders. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today.

Wrong unless you are saying that Palestine was colonised by Egypt and Jordan as that is who colonised their lands in 1960.

Yes and that is the fault of who in the real world, maybe if they had stopped being violent and terrorists as far back as 1947 maybe they would now be rich and prosperous. Every leader they have had has been forced on them by the arab muslims and no one else.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am not sure what you point is.

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that there is no application of the term "indigenous peoples" to the Palestinians?

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 that established "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated," has no legitimacy?

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

(COMMENT)

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years, that it hardly makes a difference what or how that leadership managed its administration over four decades ago. Governments evolve.

I ask again... What is your point? Be clear.

Most Respectfully,
R

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years,...​

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am not sure what you point is.

Indeed you have but your links apply to indigenous people who lost their country to conquest before it was illegal to do so. I don't see how they apply to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that there is no application of the term "indigenous peoples" to the Palestinians?

You really should not use the PA/PLO in the same sentence with the Palestinians. The PLO started going weird in the 1970s. They made that useless declaration of independence in 1988. Then they virtually sold out when they got suckered into signing Oslo. Of course they did the above without the consultation or approval of the people.

(COMMENT)

Are you saying that the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 that established "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated," has no legitimacy?

Here is some background on the PA/PLO.

Oslo s Roots Kissinger the PLO and the Peace Process

(COMMENT)

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years, that it hardly makes a difference what or how that leadership managed its administration over four decades ago. Governments evolve.

I ask again... What is your point? Be clear.

Most Respectfully,
R

The leadership behind the Palestinian People has been so convoluted over the years,...​

Because the Palestinians have no concept of free determination, and just leave it up to others to decide their fate

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, the declaration was adopted by General Assembly as Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, it was a very different region.

No, I am just saying that those resolutions do not fit Palestine's situation. This is more applicable.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

(COMMENT)

In 1960, the West Bank was under Jordanian Sovereignty; established by the Jordanian parliament a decade before --- and remained so until 1988. This was a political action in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented in the Jordanian Parliament. The motion was unanimously approved through Parliament and with the consent of the Palestinian People (right of self-determination). This was not a move by any colonial power. So, essentially, from the time of the Arab League invasion (1948), until the Disengagement from the West Bank by Jordan in EOM July 1988, by the consent of the Palestinians, the West Bank was under Jordanian control (military occupation until April 1950, and sovereignty through July1988). If there was a Colonial Power (establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory), it would have been The Hashemite Kingdom. BUT, since the Palestinians of the West Bank were deeply involved in the annexation of the West Bank, and that the West Bank was annexed through the consent of the people, it is not really a colonial action.

Similarly, the Gaza Strip was (theoretically) was under the quasi-Administration of the "All Palestinian Government" (APG), under the umbrella protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship from the time of the Arab League invasion (1948) until the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG in 1959. From that point forward, and until the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt, the Egyptian Military Governorship maintained control over the Gaza Strip. Again, if there was a Colonial Power (establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory), it would have been Arab Republic of Egypt.

In time of the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine --- Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974; the Arab League (as the regional authority of Arabs) recognized an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels. In 1974, the West Bank was still sovereign Jordanian territory; not liberated Palestinian territory. And again, the Gaza Strip was still under the Military Governorship; which did not change until the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979.

The fact is that the Palestinians have never had much to do in choosing their own leaders. For the most part they have been imposed on them by outsiders. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have always had the capacity in choosing their leadership. The Palestinians merely forfeited their options and allowed their opportunities to be exploited by other Arabs.

The Palestinians had essentially the same opportunities as the Israelis; they just could not make it work for them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When, the declaration was adopted by General Assembly as Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, it was a very different region.

No, I am just saying that those resolutions do not fit Palestine's situation. This is more applicable.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

(COMMENT)

In 1960, the West Bank was under Jordanian Sovereignty; established by the Jordanian parliament a decade before --- and remained so until 1988. This was a political action in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented in the Jordanian Parliament. The motion was unanimously approved through Parliament and with the consent of the Palestinian People (right of self-determination). This was not a move by any colonial power. So, essentially, from the time of the Arab League invasion (1948), until the Disengagement from the West Bank by Jordan in EOM July 1988, by the consent of the Palestinians, the West Bank was under Jordanian control (military occupation until April 1950, and sovereignty through July1988). If there was a Colonial Power (establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory), it would have been The Hashemite Kingdom. BUT, since the Palestinians of the West Bank were deeply involved in the annexation of the West Bank, and that the West Bank was annexed through the consent of the people, it is not really a colonial action.

Similarly, the Gaza Strip was (theoretically) was under the quasi-Administration of the "All Palestinian Government" (APG), under the umbrella protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship from the time of the Arab League invasion (1948) until the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG in 1959. From that point forward, and until the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt, the Egyptian Military Governorship maintained control over the Gaza Strip. Again, if there was a Colonial Power (establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory), it would have been Arab Republic of Egypt.

In time of the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine --- Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974; the Arab League (as the regional authority of Arabs) recognized an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels. In 1974, the West Bank was still sovereign Jordanian territory; not liberated Palestinian territory. And again, the Gaza Strip was still under the Military Governorship; which did not change until the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979.

The fact is that the Palestinians have never had much to do in choosing their own leaders. For the most part they have been imposed on them by outsiders. Palestine was born under occupation and that continues today.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have always had the capacity in choosing their leadership. The Palestinians merely forfeited their options and allowed their opportunities to be exploited by other Arabs.

The Palestinians had essentially the same opportunities as the Israelis; they just could not make it work for them.

Most Respectfully,
R

When, the declaration was adopted by General Assembly as Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, it was a very different region.​

Politics and propaganda have changed. Legalities have not.

I have a question that will not be answered.

If Israel occupied the Jordanian territory of the West Bank in 1967, why did Jordan relinquish the territory to the PLO in 1988?

Your post does not make any sense.