I will not Bow!

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

This General Assembly Resolution is neither "international law" (non-binding) or applicable.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.


(COMMENT)

Yeah, we're funny like that.

If I answer in a short, abbreviated fashion, you want "links" and cherry pick the sound bites. If I anticipate your counter-point, you say it is "verbose" and full of "smoke;" but don't challenge the content; merely the manner of presentation.

(BACKGROUND & QUESTION)

So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.

• So, if this is true, then why should any other country care about the dispute if it (as you claim) is harmless (not a threat) to them?

You are always quite nebulas as to the authority the Palestinians claim to conduct violent and hostile resistance.

• Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?
• Where is the exemption cited?

√ "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).​

You are always quite careful to avoid a clear and concise answer to the questions about the current negotiating position of the Palestinians. The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) is quite clear on the issue of borders and their position.

Do you agree with the PLO-NAD that:

• Key Facts
  • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
  • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
  • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

• Our Position
  • A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
    • Borders:
      • Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?"



UNGA Resolution 2649


Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;

Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;

This covers both the right to resist by any means and the right to seek material assistance (including armament).

So go back and conjure up some new BS that you can fling around.

(COMMENT)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

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, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

SOURCE: A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988

Second, General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) gave the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries; not to an enemy population engaged in hostile aggression. Palestine was not then, is not now and never been a "colonial asset" to any Allied Power. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied as the result of a conflict between Egypt and Jordan (the Palestinians in the West Bank being Jordanians).

Since the time of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970), the General Assembly omitted using reference to the Resolution 2649, as exemplified by COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Fifty-first session
1995/4 Situation in occupied Palestine (specifically).

I repeat, yet again, there is no international law that gives the Palestinians the right to use Jihad, Fedayeen armed struggle, or any other hostile or violent means, to achieve their political ends.

While you did site General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV), you have yet to cite an authority (international law, treaty, or convention) that permits such action. The Rome Statutes, the Geneva Convention, and the Declaration of Principles all argue against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State; including Israel or the United States.

Most Respectfully,
R

You failed to read the resolution. It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:

"Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination"

Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;"

Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.

 

[P F Tinmore]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

Because half the land was already declared by Israel who have the same rights as Palestine to free determination and secure borders. There was no treaty extant that gave all of Palestine to the Palestinians

No it wasn't you need to study your history.

Palestine was already Palestinian land according to post war treaties.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Good Faith - Peace Talk - Negotiations

The very thing the Palestinians are trying to weasel out of.


(COMMENT)

Now who is evading the question?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?

I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.

They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.

Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.

 

[Hossfly]

I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.

I didn't start it. Others brought you up. It seems that you are considered the intellectual elite of posters on this board. I agree. I appreciate your interaction. Of course that does not mean that I agree with you.

Most people just post drivel and clutter. They just throw stones and call names.

Tinmore, your bullheadedness is going to make you argue with the devil but he's going to drag you off anyways.

 

[MrMax]

The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?

I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.

They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.

Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.

So when are you giving your land back to the indians?

 

[montelatici]

They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.

Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.

So when are you giving your land back to the indians?

Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days. The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.

The law is different today.

 

[toastman]

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

Because half the land was already declared by Israel who have the same rights as Palestine to free determination and secure borders. There was no treaty extant that gave all of Palestine to the Palestinians

No it wasn't you need to study your history.

Palestine was already Palestinian land according to post war treaties.

No, YOU need to study your history.
The land had ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ISRAEL.
Not up for debate.

And if it was already Palestinian land, why did they need to declare independence in 1988??
Also, there is no post war treaty that said Palestine was Palestinian land. Stop lying.

 

[toastman]

The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?

I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.

They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.

Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.

Palestine has no internationally recognized borders.
You have yet to show a CURRENT map of Palestine that clearly shows and marks those borders. All you have is the partition plan map.

 

[MrMax]

Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.

So when are you giving your land back to the indians?

Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days. The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.

The law is different today.

So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.

 

[montelatici]

So when are you giving your land back to the indians?

Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days. The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.

The law is different today.

So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.

Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.

Why should I kiss a carpet? And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?

 

[Hossfly]

Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days. The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.

The law is different today.

So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.

Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.

Why should I kiss a carpet? And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?

I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.

 

[montelatici]

So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.

Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.

Why should I kiss a carpet? And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?

I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.

I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer. The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily. You would be banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront. Congratulations.

And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

 

[Kondor3]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

Impediments to the validity of the 1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence or Statehood?

1. Four (4) months later than the May 1948 Jewish one, so, the Sep 1948 Arab Declaration is only un-contested in connection with land parcels still controlled by the Arabs as of the Sep 1948 Declaration date (only pertains, un-contested, to a portion of Old Palestine, not all, despite their belated and unrealistic claims, embedded in that joke of a document).

2. It never governed; the All-Palestine Government was a political figurehead and Egyptian mouthpiece; sitting first in Gaza, then fleeing to Cairo as the Israelis advanced on Gaza; and their Arab patron-neighbor states dissolved it after 10-11 years; recognizing its uselessness. A government that cannot govern, even in exile, is no government at all.

3. It was never recognized, beyond the domain of the Arab League, and then, only imperfectly.

4. A declaration by a non-existent or non-functioning Government is no declaration at all.

...and a host of other things, I'm sure; but that's a good down-payment on answering the question.

 

[Kondor3]

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.

Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.

They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.

The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.

Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.

To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.

It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.

Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.

Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.

They won't be trying it again anytime soon.

Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.

As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.

Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.

 

[Hossfly]

Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.

Why should I kiss a carpet? And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?

I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.

I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer. The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily. You would be banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront. Congratulations.

And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.

BFD. I have been calling Islam a cancer for over 50 years and the whole world knows it. It's just that people and countries are scared shitless of offending the OPEC countries but the worm is beginning to turn.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.

Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.

They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.

The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.

Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.

To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.

It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.

Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.

Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.

Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.

Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.

As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.

Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

You have nothing.

 

[toastman]

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

The land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.

I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.

 

[toastman]

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.

Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.

They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.

The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.

Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.

To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.

It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.

Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.

Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.

Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.

Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.

As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.

Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

You have nothing.

As oppose to what you have; Lies and Palestinian propaganda.

 

[Hossfly]

In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

The land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.

I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.

The Tinmore Coat of Arms probably reads "E Pluribus Anus".