I will not Bow!

[Kondor3]

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.

I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.

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

What have you got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.

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

What have you got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

 

[MrMax]

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

You have nothing.

I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.

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

What have you got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

Like you did with the indians?

 

[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 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.

Where did Israel claim that land?

Link?

 

[montelatici]

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.

I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.

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

What have you got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.

That's what the South Africans said.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4FB09CwiQY]SADF 1980's - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MrMax]

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.

Where did Israel claim that land?

Link?

It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

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.

(GENERAL DISAGREEMENT)

I generally disagree that the Palestinians have any right to use "any means at their disposal" under General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970). It violates the basic Declaration of Principles and the basic objectives of the UN Charter.

(THE CONSEQUENCES)

If you invoke Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter, (even if we overlook the questionable applicability and standing) then you are essentially stating that the dispute is a "war" over violation of international lines of demarcation (1949 Armistice Lines) established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect.

(Questionable Applicability and Standing)

• Today's State of Palestine was not then and is not now a Member of the United Nations. In 1967, the West Bank was not Palestinian Territory, but sovereign territory of Jordan. The State of Jordan was invaded and not Palestinian Territory.

• The occupation of today's West Bank (Jordan) was settled via the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, when (pursuant to Article 3) the boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), became the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967. It should be remembered that on 31 July 1988, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made the decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank was made.

• Impact of the Timeline:
  • June 1967:
    • Israel, after an artillery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line; and after Jordan launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem; Israel advances in defense to counter Jordanian offensive military action. West Bank is occupied Jordanian territory (oJt) by Israel.
  • July 1988:
    • King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
  • November 1988:
    • The Palestine National Council hereby declares the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
      • October 1994:
        • • Israel-Jordan Treaty: Secure and recognized international boundary set between Israel and Jordan.

It would seem that Israel was NOT established inside Palestine, but the the State of Palestine was established inside the oJt, later the Israeli border internationally recognized by both Jordan and Israel through treaty.

Thus, if there is a "war" (a Chapter VII event under the Charter), it is a quasi-Civil War between the State of Israel and the people of the unincorporated West Bank (people of the former oJt) ceded to Israel by Jordan. The consequence being that it is a domestic issue; outside international law. Clearly the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan have the boundary down the Jordan River and through the center of the Dead Sea.

It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.

One side of the boundary is Israel and the other side Jordan. Is that how you read it?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Where did Israel claim that land?

Link?

It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.

Israel is defined on all maps by the 1949 armistice lines.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

 

[Kondor3]

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

That's the ticket, Tinny... you go with that... I'm sure that'll serve you in good stead... as it has, for the past 66 years...

 

[MrMax]

Where did Israel claim that land?

Link?

It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.

Israel is defined on all maps by the 1949 armistice lines.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

Armistice lines? They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.

 

[Kondor3]

"...That's what the South Africans said.

Wonderful... delightful... I'm sure you're right...

Now, all you need to do, is make the South Africa scenario materialize, in connection with Israel, and you're all set.

Rotsa ruck...

 

[montelatici]

It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.

Israel is defined on all maps by the 1949 armistice lines.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

Armistice lines? They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.

Which Arab states surrounding Israel are still at war with Israel? Maybe Syria.

 

[MrMax]

Israel is defined on all maps by the 1949 armistice lines.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

Armistice lines? They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.

Which Arab states surrounding Israel are still at war with Israel? Maybe Syria.

No, please try again.

 

[aris2chat]

The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.

Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.

Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)

Well, you are quite the simpleton then. Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier. Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example? You people are so hypocritical.

Kharroub was palestinian.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

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

"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.

You really need to learn English comprehension as the P.A. declared while under occupation. If you want it the way you say them every western nation can implement the same rule and wipe out the muslims who are colonising the west and enforcing their alien domination. Always remember what you declare as valid for one set of people has to be valid for every set of people.

 

[Kondor3]

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders...

The Israelis got tired of waiting for the Arabs to come to terms, so they finalized those borders unilaterally, and sustained their opinion in the matter.

You know what to do, it you disagree with that position; take it back.

Otherwise, it's time to face Reality and move on.

Or, should I say, it was time to do that, 50-60 years ago.

After 1967, that window of opportunity closed forevermore.

It's what comes from procrastinating, in facing-up to Reality.

You snooze, you lose.

No do-overs.

Too late now.

Next slide, please.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Was it or was it so the Hashemites could take Syria and trans Jordan which are both part of the Palestine you keep referring to. The one that had International Borders and which granted its occupants citizenship of the nation it was to become.

Here is the partial map of Palestine from 1920

 

[Phoenall]

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.

A pity then that Syria and Jordan have already done that under the Mandate and stole the majority of Palestine for themselves. See this map for details

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

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.

(GENERAL DISAGREEMENT)

I generally disagree that the Palestinians have any right to use "any means at their disposal" under General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970). It violates the basic Declaration of Principles and the basic objectives of the UN Charter.

(THE CONSEQUENCES)

If you invoke Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter, (even if we overlook the questionable applicability and standing) then you are essentially stating that the dispute is a "war" over violation of international lines of demarcation (1949 Armistice Lines) established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect.

(Questionable Applicability and Standing)

• Today's State of Palestine was not then and is not now a Member of the United Nations. In 1967, the West Bank was not Palestinian Territory, but sovereign territory of Jordan. The State of Jordan was invaded and not Palestinian Territory.

• The occupation of today's West Bank (Jordan) was settled via the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, when (pursuant to Article 3) the boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), became the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967. It should be remembered that on 31 July 1988, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made the decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank was made.

• Impact of the Timeline:
  • June 1967:
    • Israel, after an artillery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line; and after Jordan launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem; Israel advances in defense to counter Jordanian offensive military action. West Bank is occupied Jordanian territory (oJt) by Israel.
  • July 1988:
    • King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
  • November 1988:
    • The Palestine National Council hereby declares the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
      • October 1994:
        • • Israel-Jordan Treaty: Secure and recognized international boundary set between Israel and Jordan.

It would seem that Israel was NOT established inside Palestine, but the the State of Palestine was established inside the oJt, later the Israeli border internationally recognized by both Jordan and Israel through treaty.

Thus, if there is a "war" (a Chapter VII event under the Charter), it is a quasi-Civil War between the State of Israel and the people of the unincorporated West Bank (people of the former oJt) ceded to Israel by Jordan. The consequence being that it is a domestic issue; outside international law. Clearly the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan have the boundary down the Jordan River and through the center of the Dead Sea.

It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.

One side of the boundary is Israel and the other side Jordan. Is that how you read it?

Most Respectfully,
R

A couple of problems with your post.

1) The West Bank was not part of Jordan. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank and pretended that it had but the world was not with them on that.

2) The 1949 UN armistice agreement (that Israel signed) specifically called the land west of Jordan (the Negev) Palestine. When did Israel acquire that land?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

It does not seem to deter the Palestinians when they ethnically cleanse and carry out genocides on the Christians does it