I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

Ownership has never changed hands.

The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza

Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.

The Oslo accords were are treaty signed by the Palestinian representatives and Israel that set out certain things that each side had to do. See here

Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Oslo Accords are a set of agreements between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO): the Oslo I Accord, signed in Oslo in 1993[1] and the Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba in 1995.[2] The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process that aimed the conclusion of a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, and fulfil the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".
Outline of the peace plan[edit]

Stated goals of the Oslo Accords were inter alia a Palestinian interim Self-Government (not the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Legislative Council) and a permanent settlement (of unresolved issues) within five years, based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Although the agreements recognize the Palestinian "legitimate and political rights", they remain silent about their fate after the interim period. The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.


End of the interim period[edit]

In May 1999, the five years interim period ended without reaching a comprehensive peace agreement, but elements of the Oslo Accords remained. The interim Palestinian Authority became permanent, and a dominant factor of the PLO. The West Bank remained divided into Areas A, B and C, the latter some 60% of the West Bank and under exclusive military and civilian control, leaving the Palestinian inhabitants as an oppressed population with little rights. Also the Israeli Civil Administration, despite what the name suggests a military institution, is still functioning in full. The Israeli–Palestinian Joint Water Committee still exists as well


Key agreements[edit]

Key agreements in the Oslo process were:
##Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.##The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).
##The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[8] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel.
##The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.



Try again as it was a Peace treaty and it is still in force.

 

[Phoenall]

The hell I did... I just deemed the subject so important that I chose to address it in a separate thread.

You mean rather than address it you chose to slither away and then lie.
Typical anti-Israel scummy.
Why am I not surprised.

Typical Zionist personal attack.

Why am I not surprised.

Well you would know little boy as you do it all the time.

 

[montelatici]

The fact that what you write leads me to believe you have serious emotional issues, is not a personal attack. It is, hopefully, a catalyst that will lead you to seek professional help.

 

[Kondor3]

Ownership has never changed hands.

The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza

Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.

Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?

Representative government (indeed, representation itself) does not require (indeed, it eschews) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.

The People speak their piece at election-time.

Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?

Was there a substantive problem with the (legitimizing or accrediting) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?

If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...

If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza

Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.

Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?

Representative government (indeed, representation itself) does not require (indeed, it eschews) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.

The People speak their piece at election-time.

Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?

Was there a substantive problem with the (legitimizing or accrediting) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?

If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...

If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?

The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.

Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[montelatici]

"They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[9][10] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords",

Benjamin Netanyahu

 

[Hossfly]

None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land. The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme

Over 100 UN resolutions, say you're full of shit!

People like you, don't deserve a country.

100 resolutions and 5 dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Jump on it Billy.

 

[montelatici]

The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.

That is Zionist code for the Haganah and Irgun began attacking Christian and Muslim villages slaughtering Muslim and Christian civilians, and the Muslims and Christians made the mistake of trying to defend themselves.

 

[Sally]

The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.

That is Zionist code for the Haganah and Irgun began attacking Christian and Muslim villages slaughtering Muslim and Christian civilians, and the Muslims and Christians made the mistake of trying to defend themselves.

This from Haniya is Islasmic code to deny history. Meanwhile, Haniya, since you want us to believe you are so worried about the Christians, why aren't you posting about their terrible conditions they have to live under in those vast lands which make up the rest of the Middle East which are ruled by Muslims. Maybe the harassment, dead bodies and destroyed churches don't bother you at all if you can't drag the Jews into this.

 

[Kondor3]

Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.[/quote]
Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?

Representative government (indeed, representation itself) does not require (indeed, it eschews) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.

The People speak their piece at election-time.

Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?

Was there a substantive problem with the (legitimizing or accrediting) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?

If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...

If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?

The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.

Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately, this does not help us to better understand whether Popular Ratification (affirmation) of a Deal was required, in order to render it legitimate and binding, as one of our colleagues has suggested by implication.

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, montelatici, et al,

I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.

The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.

Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately, this does not help us to better understand whether Popular Ratification (affirmation) of a Deal was required, in order to render it legitimate and binding, as one of our colleagues has suggested by implication.

(COMMENT)

I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Kondor3, montelatici, et al,

I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.

Unfortunately, this does not help us to better understand whether Popular Ratification (affirmation) of a Deal was required, in order to render it legitimate and binding, as one of our colleagues has suggested by implication.

(COMMENT)

I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.

Most Respectfully,
R

The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent? Think about it. You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration. The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.

That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.

Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

 

[toastman]

Kondor3, montelatici, et al,

I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.

(COMMENT)

I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.

Most Respectfully,
R

The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent? Think about it. You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.

Truth hurts , doesn't it?

 

[toastman]

For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration. The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.

That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.

Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

The Treaty of Lausanne was Palestines birthday?? Is that what you just said?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

BLUF: Not often.

The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent? Think about it. You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.

(QUESTIONs)

Are you suggesting that:

• Regarding Inferiority: The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?
• Regarding Capacity: The State of Palestine is fully capable of entering into peaceful negotiations, in good faith?
• Regarding Violence: The State of Palestine has not supported Jihadist activity and armed struggle, in opposition to the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Nations.

(EXHIBIT)

• Regarding Capacity:
  • Article 21 Charter: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization.
  • Article 13 Covenant: Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
• Regarding Violence:
  • Article 9 Charter: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
  • Article 13 Covenant: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?

Not any more.

When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.

And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...

Sharon's breach of Oslo was step too far

Israeli move into Palestinian-controlled area was serious risk

 

[Phoenall]

The fact that what you write leads me to believe you have serious emotional issues, is not a personal attack. It is, hopefully, a catalyst that will lead you to seek professional help.

Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help, you see I am not a muslims that exists on violence and lies. But I have studied islam in great depth and know all about how it works. How in offers so much yet delivers so little, how it persecutes non muslims till they either leave their homes or convert to islam. So ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST what do you have to say about that, a Christian that knows too much about islam. What you call an ISLAMOPHOBE

 

[P F Tinmore]

Regarding Inferiority: The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?

You don't know much about this conflict, do you?

Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.

 

[Phoenall]

Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.

Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?

Representative government (indeed, representation itself) does not require (indeed, it eschews) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.

The People speak their piece at election-time.

Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?

Was there a substantive problem with the (legitimizing or accrediting) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?

If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...

If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?

The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.

Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your point being what exactly, that this changes the definition or representative government. The PLO had the power to sign on behalf of the Palestinian people, and they signed for the above as just a small part of the whole.