I will not Bow!

[SAYIT]

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.

Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.

 

[MrMax]

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

What am I ignorant of?

That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?

 

[Billo_Really]

That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?

You can't give, what you don't have!

That land was never Israel's.

 

[Billo_Really]

Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.

There's more than two choices.

Israel could end the occupation.

There, that's a 3rd choice.

 

[MrMax]

That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?

You can't give, what you don't have!

That land was never Israel's.

What, the non-native people in the US have no land?

How is it different how you acquired your land, and how Israel acquired theirs? No diseased blankets from Israel?

 

[SAYIT]

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

More lame deflection.
At issue is the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.

 

[Kondor3]

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[/I]

More lame deflection.
At issue is the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.

Agreed.

The issues are:

1. the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord

2. the validity of PLO actions in formulating that accord

3. whether Popular Ratification of treaties is required under systems of representative government.

====================

At the point in time where (a) it was concluded, (b) it was still in its original and pristine condition, and (c) no breaches had yet occurred on the part of either side...

My own initial reactions - rightly or wrongly - are:

1. Oslo was legitimate

2. the PLO was empowered to treat on behalf of the Palestinian people

3. popular ratification is not required

 

[natstew]

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

Denial, ain't just a river in Egypt.

No it's not, It's a big river of delusion running right through your brain!

 

[Phoenall]

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!



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.


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.

Their source is Palestinian, they have just published the piece as this the first sentence shows


"The Israelis crossed a red line today," said Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian who was involved in the peace process. "Oslo is dead."

YOU LOSE

Just putting the time line right, but then you don't like seeing your hero's dhown in a true light do you.


Still as valid as any of your links as it tells the reality.

The Gatestone institute biased ? That is the biggest laugh ever, now you are clutching at straws


Not Illegal at all according to International Law judges, but valid under the terms of the Geneva convention. Something that you have not even attempted to answer.

My reality is that both sides are just as much to blame as each other, but at the end of the day the Palestinians refusal to meet and talk does neither side any favours.

You on the other hand refuse to see that the Palestinians constant terrorist attacks and BLOOD LIBELS are just fanning the flames of hatred even more. How about Israel do to the Palestinians what you advocate the Americans do to the Jews ?

 

[Phoenall]

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

What am I ignorant of?

The reality of the Israeli/muslim conflict and just who can end it.

 

[Phoenall]

That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?

You can't give, what you don't have!

That land was never Israel's.

So when was it the arab Palestinian muslims, as they had not owned it for longer than 22 years in the 1400 years of their existence. You forget the legal landowners under International Law gave the land to the Jews for their NATIONAL HOME. Just as they gave the land of Syria and Jordan as the arab Palestinian muslims national homes.

 

[Phoenall]

Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.

There's more than two choices.

Israel could end the occupation.

There, that's a 3rd choice.

Why is it always Israel that has to do something in your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED MIND why cant it be the Palestinians that have to give up terrorism, violence ands belligerence as they were told in 1949, 1967 and 1973 by the UN.

 

[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

More lame deflection.
At issue is the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.

The issue is even more complicated as if they don't have the authority to negotiate then Palestine can not be a sovereign nation and can not be represented at the UN. So either Palestine is legitimate and cam about because of its ability to decide for the people, or it does not exist and can never exist because the people wont give them the right to decide.

 

[Phoenall]

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...

More lame deflection.
At issue is the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.

Agreed.

The issues are:

1. the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord

2. the validity of PLO actions in formulating that accord

3. whether Popular Ratification of treaties is required under systems of representative government.

====================

At the point in time where (a) it was concluded, (b) it was still in its original and pristine condition, and (c) no breaches had yet occurred on the part of either side...

My own initial reactions - rightly or wrongly - are:

1. Oslo was legitimate

2. the PLO was empowered to treat on behalf of the Palestinian people

3. popular ratification is not required

The clinching deal was that parts of the Oslo accords became International law and are still in force today. These include the aspects that the ISLAMONAZI's try and delegitimise because they don't help the Palestinians.

 

[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.

Palestine was a country? When?

... in that country; and ...for placing the country under...development of the country. ... of the country or of the public... needs of the country, having...of the country, in so far as...benefit of the country in... defence of the country...of the country and to safeguard...may leave the country without...

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

OH, about then.

 

[SAYIT]

Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.

There's more than two choices.

Israel could end the occupation.
There, that's a 3rd choice.

Stop being a pretentious jackass.
How does your "3rd choice" end the Arab threat?
In fact, how does anything the Israelis do, short of marching into the sea, satisfy you or their "peaceful" Arab neighbors?
There has not been a moment in modern Israel's existence that her neighbors were not a threat to attack her regardless of the position of the boundaries/borders.

 

[toastman]

Palestine became a sovereign country in 1988

 

[Kondor3]

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?

... in that country; and ...for placing the country under...development of the country. ... of the country or of the public... needs of the country, having...of the country, in so far as...benefit of the country in... defence of the country...of the country and to safeguard...may leave the country without...

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

OH, about then.

Tinny...

You guys (pro-Palestinian side) really and truly crack me up, when you start leaning so hard upon the use of Descriptor A or B to outline Old Palestine, and to pretend that such a verbiage ipso facto rendered Palestine a 'nation' in a Real World setting...

The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...

With no identifiable holistic all-of-Old-Palestine ownership or sovereignty extant nor internationally recognized at the time of the mandate, and with no autonomous self-governance nor charter nor incorporation nor diplomatic credentials nor national standing at the time...

The use of the word 'country' may easily and rightfully and defensibly be construed as 'the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine'.

'Country' is much shorter than 'the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine' - don't you think?

Your side has been trying to sell that old canard for 66 years now, and you haven't even made a dent in global public opinion, beyond the domain of Islam, in order to bring the rest of Mankind over to your viewpoint.

After 66 years, comes a time when the Grown-Ups concede that the canard just isn't sell-able.

Oh... and... by the way... the very first reference to Palestine in that document describes it merely as the 'territory of Palestine' formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

Words don't make a country... money and brains and balls make a country... along with enough force and victories on the battlefield to win and sustain a new country.

The Jews were smart enough and courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.

The Palestinian Muslims were not smart enough nor courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.

Had the Palestinian Muslims tended to their own Nation-Building rather than trying to interfere with the Other Guys, and had their Arab-Muslim neighbors not tried to interfere with the Other Guys, the Palestinians would not have been living in shitholes for the past 66 years.

But... it was their choice... and that choice had consequences... no Do-Overs allowed at this late juncture.

And all the dusted-over, rusted-over, crusted-over, molded-over Old Legal Standings and pleadings and interpretations and spin-doctoring in the world isn't going to change that now.

You're (metaphorically) swinging after the bell, and much of the rest of the world is getting a good belly-laugh over it.

 

[toastman]

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!



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.


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 accusing someone else of talking like a two year old LOL!!!!

Now THAT'S funny!

 

[Phoenall]

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?

... in that country; and ...for placing the country under...development of the country. ... of the country or of the public... needs of the country, having...of the country, in so far as...benefit of the country in... defence of the country...of the country and to safeguard...may leave the country without...

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

OH, about then.

Wrong context if you look at your link, in that country means land and not nation


Another fail try again, as Palestine was not a country under international law until 1988