I will not Bow!
- Thread starter pbel
- Start date
- Status
Like you do you mean, the Law is very clear on what and what not can be done in occupied land. Israel complies with the letter of the law all the time, unlike the Palestinians who flout International Law all the time. Just look at the warheads used on the qassam rockets that contain chemical and biological substances to cause much pain and death.
Just look at this board and go back in history, there you will see the proof you so desire.
No just English being English what would you expect. Now is this any different to your claims about MEMRI, and that the translation is fake. It is from a PRO PALESTINIAN SOURCE after all............
Another big fail by you
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,505
- 4,889
- 1,815
Wrong way round the land that you call Palestine was originally promised to the Jews, so that is the legal position.
Hamas is stating a personal opinion that they have been told is not on the cards and is against the UN charter
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
All treaties, conventions, agreements, accords and alike are political positions with a legal status.
HAMAS doesn't express legal status, but takes-up a plaintiffs position and attempts to pass it off as something factual.
For instance, it is incorrect to say that the State of Israel occupied any portion of the State of Palestine. In 1967, there was no State of Palestine.
(SIDEBAR)
Disputes concerning these two treaties, like other international disputes, should be
settled by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. Otherwise:
While the Palestinians may have standing for a complaint, it is not at all a slam-dunk case that the Palestinians have sovereignty, violated by any aspect of Israel behavior. It should be noted that the International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion(full text included) refused to consider any threats presented or demonstrated by the Palestinians. Additionally, the case was based entirely upon the complainants perspective. The court did not consider the implication of the Treaty on the sovereignty, but instead, applied it to the freedom of movement issue.
It is understood that the Settlement Issue under the permanent status of negotiation is a very weak point on the Israeli side. And that the expansion of settlements in the Occupied territories is (Prima facie) cause for complaint, it does not overshadow the scope and nature of the security threat Palestinians present to Israeli Sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)
All treaties, conventions, agreements, accords and alike are political positions with a legal status.
HAMAS doesn't express legal status, but takes-up a plaintiffs position and attempts to pass it off as something factual.
For instance, it is incorrect to say that the State of Israel occupied any portion of the State of Palestine. In 1967, there was no State of Palestine.
- In the West Bank, Israel occupied sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, annex in 1950. The people were not Palestinian, they were Jordanian. In 1994, the Hashemite Kingdom entered into a treaty establishing the new international boundary between Israel and Jordan; reference Article 3 and Annex I. Please note that there is no break in the continuity of the demarcation, in that it is a continuous boundary between Israel and Jordan, with no prejudice concerning the territory or the people.
- In 1979, Egypt and Israel the Peace Treaty established "the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable;" in accordance with Article II and Clause 3 of Article III.
(SIDEBAR)
Disputes concerning these two treaties, like other international disputes, should be
settled by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. Otherwise:
- Under Article 26 “Pacta Sunt Servanda” - 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, these treaties are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
- Under Article 27 "Internal Law and Observance of Treaties" - 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, the parties to these two treaties may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
While the Palestinians may have standing for a complaint, it is not at all a slam-dunk case that the Palestinians have sovereignty, violated by any aspect of Israel behavior. It should be noted that the International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion(full text included) refused to consider any threats presented or demonstrated by the Palestinians. Additionally, the case was based entirely upon the complainants perspective. The court did not consider the implication of the Treaty on the sovereignty, but instead, applied it to the freedom of movement issue.
It is understood that the Settlement Issue under the permanent status of negotiation is a very weak point on the Israeli side. And that the expansion of settlements in the Occupied territories is (Prima facie) cause for complaint, it does not overshadow the scope and nature of the security threat Palestinians present to Israeli Sovereignty.
Most Respectfully,
R
Wrong again child it is an historical fact as shown here
Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights
The Origin and Nature of the “Mandate for Palestine”
The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
Victory67
Rookie
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,757
- 35
- 0
- Banned
- #2,711
Wrong again child it is an historical fact as shown here
Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights
The Origin and Nature of the “Mandate for Palestine”
The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
You live in a fantasy land.
The Mandate for Palestine, is long dead.
The San Remo Conference and Balfour Declaration, are long dead.
The rights and privelages in these treaties, are dead.
But if you want to suggest they are all alive, then Israel shall be hauled before The Hague for violating all of these treaties, in their disregard for non-Jewish rights in Palestine.
God you're a stupid Nazionist!!!!
Not by firing illegal weapons at Israeli civilians and children, which is why hamas is now branded a terrorist entity by most nations. But technically they are not occupied as the ICJ has said, so they are not right to target Israelis.
Very soon the arab league will take control and wipe out hamas and fatah leaving the normal Palestinians to sit down and talk peace.
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,363
- 20,516
- 2,250
Hee hee hee. Arab delusional thinking.Wrong again child it is an historical fact as shown here
Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights
The Origin and Nature of the “Mandate for Palestine”
The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
You live in a fantasy land.
The Mandate for Palestine, is long dead.
The San Remo Conference and Balfour Declaration, are long dead.
The rights and privelages in these treaties, are dead.
But if you want to suggest they are all alive, then Israel shall be hauled before The Hague for violating all of these treaties, in their disregard for non-Jewish rights in Palestine.
God you're a stupid Nazionist!!!!
And why are those things dead and not the stupid fraudulent whiney claims of the Arabs, AFTER they attacked Israel and are responsible for the consequences thereof?
pbel
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 5,653
- 449
- 130
- Thread starter
- #2,714
Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'
A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama.
In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -- who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded -- speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process.
As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."
He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:
Hossfly
ZIONIST
That was then. This is now.
That does not mean that Israel has America in its pocket, it just means that they which strings to pull to get a desired effect. Just as America knows which strings to pull to lead Israel to a different solution
pbel
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 5,653
- 449
- 130
- Thread starter
- #2,717
The back tracking of a Zionist soldier caught with his hand in the cookie jar: Phoenall...
N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story - POLITICO.com
Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge DemocratsÂ’ traditional base among Jews.
One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
Pfffffttt...
Jealous?
pbel
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 5,653
- 449
- 130
- Thread starter
- #2,719
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
Pfffffttt...
Jealous?
Gawd you're becoming a juvenile cheerleader...
Last edited:
Wassa madda, pbel?The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
Pfffffttt...
Jealous?
Gawd you're becoming a juvenile cheerleader...
Somebody let a little hot air out of your pontificating about AIPAC?
Better a juvenile cheerleader than a fifth columnist for the Bad Guys.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
In Austria Religion and culture is more important then race in the USA race is more important- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 1
-
-
🚨BREAKING: Net migration is plummeting in major US cities.- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 10
-
-
