I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

"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

Just goes to prove that muslims cant negotiate to save their lives. Is it any different to how individual muslims interpret the Koran and hadiths that allow them to murder and rape, or even commit suicide.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The PLO has no authority to sign away the rights of the people without their consent.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

WRONG AGAIN ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST the arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and attacked the Jews in force. This one act being a severe breach on the UN charter and the Geneva conventions that disallow all out war. It was the muslims that invaded Israel and were beaten back by inferior forces. Not once but 4 times has Israel beaten back the massed armies of islam . So now islam has turned its attention to the Christians and are terrorising them into leaving the Holy Land.

Ethnic Cleansing Could Lead to Mass Exodus of Middle East Christians

The former President of Lebanon, Amine Gemayel, is a Maronite Christian. He recently warned of "an exodus approaching biblical proportions." Gemayel told a gathering in Zurich of Christian Solidarity International (CSI) and other human rights activists that the current wave of church burnings, murders, and riots against Christians in the Mideast is the work of radical Islamists. The former Lebanese leaders own brother had been assassinated in Beirut by these same jihadists.

The Jewish Press » » Christians in Israel to EU: ?Stop Christian Ethnic Cleansing in Arab Countries?

Flight of Christians from Mid-East Reaches Syria

A mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs, have been fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army, many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs, have been fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army, many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.

And the US supports the overthrow of Assad.

Just like the US supports Israel's attacks against Christians in Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

It does not need Roccor to do that the Palestinians are very capable of doing it themselves. They show that they cant agree on anything when they mass murder each others children. The fact is they are inferior, incapable, violent and stuck In a 7c mentality

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine. The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.

 

[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.

Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine. The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.

You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[Phoenall]

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

So says a "Palestinian source" that is not corroborated by anyone else.

But what about the Palestinian breach of the oslo accords that happened before the alleged breach by Israel

9 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 2003 Israeli Response to Palestinian Breach of the Oslo Agreements, The Current Developments

Is It Time Israel Ends Oslo?



Once again you show your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED and one sided twisted view of reality.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Evidence that palestine has ever been a self sufficient country, you can start with its national currency, a copy of its passports, the name of its ruler/leader and the capital city for starters. Without any of these it was never a country just a blot on the map.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The PLO has no authority to sign away the rights of the people without their consent.

The people gave their consent by not opposing the move and welcoming Arafat as their leader. As is the case in most Islamic nations they were either ruled by a dictator who did not need the peoples consent, or by a representative leader who does what he sees fit for the people. They are not a democracy were every single person has a say as that would be too long winded and costly

 

[Phoenall]

A mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs, have been fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army, many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.

And the US supports the overthrow of Assad.

Just like the US supports Israel's attacks against Christians in Palestine.

Your evidence of this is what exactly, some LYING ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING source. Or is it another of your fantasies

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine. The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.

You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.

And when did Jordan exist on Palestinian land. Once you understand that you will then see that Palestine was larger than you think.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]

Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]

Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]

For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]

Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine. The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.

You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.

And when did Jordan exist on Palestinian land. Once you understand that you will then see that Palestine was larger than you think.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]

Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]

Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]

For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]

Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]

So, how does any of that refute my post?

 

[MrMax]

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.

Palestine was a country? When?

 

[MrMax]

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.

So what have the Palestinians ever ratified? Anything?

 

[Billo_Really]

Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help...

Denial, ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[Phoenall]

You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.

And when did Jordan exist on Palestinian land. Once you understand that you will then see that Palestine was larger than you think.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]

Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]

Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]

For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]

Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]

So, how does any of that refute my post?

Are you still denying that Palestine originally included trans Jordan and Syria as defined at San Remo ?

Palestine's borders were in effect based on the borders of other nations until such time as the mandate was enacted fully and nations resurrected from the past once again flourished. To all legal intents and purposes Palestine still has no International borders until they are negotiated with its neighbours.

 

[Phoenall]

Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help...

Denial, ain't just a river in Egypt.

And your ignorance is bliss as it lets you make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[Billo_Really]

So says a "Palestinian source" that is not corroborated by anyone else.

The Guardian, is a "Palestinian source"?

My my, all this time I thought they were British.

Doesn't matter. Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals and I could care less what you personally think about a particular website.

Either provide evidence my source is wrong, or shove your head up your ass!

But what about the Palestinian breach of the oslo accords that happened before the alleged breach by Israel

You talk like a 2 year old.

"...he started it!"


"...I didn't do anything!"


"...what about what he did!"

You don't just have emotional issues, you're full blown mentally retarded!

9 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 2003 Israeli Response to Palestinian Breach of the Oslo Agreements, The Current Developments

Talk about a biased source, your little link admits that the views are from an Israeli perspective.

At least my source, posted the views of both sides.

Is It Time Israel Ends Oslo?

Although this source is a little more professional, this article is just as biased as your last one.

From juniors link (probably the missing one) :
Since the Oslo Accords came into effect, each time a breakthrough seems close, the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] leadership, has exhibited a perplexing way of breaching the Accords' conditions and provoking Israel

"...provoking Israel."

Israel's had an ongoing, illegal occupation for almost 50 years now, but it's the Palestinian's "provoking" them?

Yep, you're a fuckin' retard, alright!

Once again you show your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED and one sided twisted view of reality.

And you've shown that "reality", is not something you are aware of.

 

[Billo_Really]

And your ignorance is bliss as it lets you make a complete fool of yourself.

What am I ignorant of?