Proves that farmers and fishermen are not being shot at by the IDF doesn't it.
Same mic and stand I use when contacting the hams in Jordan
Images from Palestine
- Thread starter Preacher
- Start date
Proves that farmers and fishermen are not being shot at by the IDF doesn't it.
Same mic and stand I use when contacting the hams in Jordan
See the link to the bible? I am assuming you are a christian?
That is a proven blood libel added at a much later date by the Catholic clergy. A lot of that went on to draw the more blood thirsty into the fold
I think the OP must mean either pictures from Gaza, Jordan or Israel, because there is no palestine.
Its as if I declared a state smack in the middle of Canada somewhere and managed to fool some percentage of people into recognizing it, but Canada didn't.
Would there be a state ?
A state must control its own borders, for that matter have borders. This imaginary palestine doesn't. No borders, no state. No functional government, no state. No effective control of any given land area, no state.
Only Gaza Israel and Jordan qualifies as a state within the mandated area under any measure of the term. Ergo the OP must be mistaken ;--)
Its as if I declared a state smack in the middle of Canada somewhere and managed to fool some percentage of people into recognizing it, but Canada didn't.
Would there be a state ?
A state must control its own borders, for that matter have borders. This imaginary palestine doesn't. No borders, no state. No functional government, no state. No effective control of any given land area, no state.
Only Gaza Israel and Jordan qualifies as a state within the mandated area under any measure of the term. Ergo the OP must be mistaken ;--)
Proves that farmers and fishermen are not being shot at by the IDF doesn't it.
Same mic and stand I use when contacting the hams in Jordan
Actually, the first picture is of an Israeli and a Palestinian planting trees together.
The second is of fishermen, trying to earn a livelyhood. The livelyhood your sort claim is just "welfare handouts".
There are countless incidences of Israeli's and Arab Muslims getting along just fine. I have friends on both sides and they're good people. in both camps. Most actually are fine people just trying to get by.
Its a mistake to think "they're all bad". They're not. Its only some who need to be expelled/repatriated.
Its a mistake to think "they're all bad". They're not. Its only some who need to be expelled/repatriated.
I
Isnt that what you did, when you produced pictures of Syria and Beirut and tried to passs them of as gaza. You know there is an easy way to show when and where pictures were taken don't you, and that is why we laugh at your immature attempts at demonising Israel. You do your cause no favours with your stupidity and failure to research your source of information. Just waiting for you to show another pallywood enhanced photograph of dead bodies in Kosovo and try to claim they are from gaza.
Oh yea a very TINY sample of pictures that could have been taken anywhere proves that...yep totally.
Proves that farmers and fishermen are not being shot at by the IDF doesn't it.
Same mic and stand I use when contacting the hams in Jordan
Isnt that what you did, when you produced pictures of Syria and Beirut and tried to passs them of as gaza. You know there is an easy way to show when and where pictures were taken don't you, and that is why we laugh at your immature attempts at demonising Israel. You do your cause no favours with your stupidity and failure to research your source of information. Just waiting for you to show another pallywood enhanced photograph of dead bodies in Kosovo and try to claim they are from gaza.
Proves that farmers and fishermen are not being shot at by the IDF doesn't it.
Same mic and stand I use when contacting the hams in Jordan
Actually, the first picture is of an Israeli and a Palestinian planting trees together.
The second is of fishermen, trying to earn a livelyhood. The livelyhood your sort claim is just "welfare handouts".[/QUOTE
And you can prove that " my sort " claim that peacxeful Palestinians going about their lawful business is welfare handouts. I reserve that for the likes of hamas and fatah that don't want the hassle of enforcing any laws so engineer continual UN handouts rather than take control. You have just proven that the Palestinians don't want a state, they want handouts as is their right under their islamonazi law.
But as I said the pictures show that your claims of farmers and fishermen getting shot at are LIES as they only get shot at when in breach of the last set of agreements. This is usually right after hamas fires an illegal weapon at Israel that is not just an act of war but also a war crime.
Here are some more pictures from Palestine
Guess who caused this ?
I
I fully agree, those that show support for any of the terrorist groups should be segregated and housed in separate camps until they are sterilised and then allowed to splutter for a few years until they die out.
I fully agree, those that show support for any of the terrorist groups should be segregated and housed in separate camps until they are sterilised and then allowed to splutter for a few years until they die out.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Boston1, et al,
Well, this has been a "minor question" (both legal and political) for more than a century. And in determining the solution to this geopolitical issue, is how it comes to be applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
It is not as clear, cut'n'dry as many would have you believe.
Given no further information, what you described is called the Acquisition of Sovereignty by "(4) Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803."
However, usually, the parent sovereignty of the territory (in your example case Canada) would use force (paramilitary and police) to reestablish law and order under the supreme law in Canada, The Constitution.
(COMMENT)
The 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (AKA: The Montevideo Convention) very specifically states that: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is an example of Declarative Sovereignty. This is much like saying: I am independent and sovereign, therefore I am independent and sovereign. This has not happened much in history; there is usually some blood spilt over territorial control.
In point of fact, political science merely uses these to theories to describe the Acquisition of Sovereignty; but neither theory of recognition satisfactorily describes contemporary and present day practice. Just saying I am a state, does not confer the reality of being a state. The "All Palestine Government" said it was a state, and defined its permanent population, territory, and nature of the provisional government. BUT it never attained the capacity to enter into relations with the other states simply because it was not recognized. That was the significance of Mahmoud Abbas signing treaties, to demonstrate its ability to enter into relations with other states. There is a serious question as to whether the November 1988 State of Palestine ever achieved real independence or ever became sovereign. Many people believe that in reality, the State of Palestine is illusionary; that the Government of Mahmoud Abbas is actually a dysfunctional de jure (legitimate or lawful); but is not what it actual implies --- legally elected, and so recognized by other states. In fact, some Palestinians themselves argue that the Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas does not represent the legally elected government. And thus, if true, then the treaties signed by him are not really valid. But, whether or not Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas is actually the de jure government --- is NOT the question posed internationally. Mahmoud Abbas is recognized as the President of the Quasi-Republic for the State of Palestine. There is no one we can point to that holds the real reigns of power and control as the de facto power. Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity. Thus, just because HAMAS was never in effective control of the 1988 State of Palestine after the 2006 Elections, does not mean that HAMAS is not the real government. The answer is still ambiguous.
• Which government is recognized as the de jure Government of the State of Palestine?
What impact does the answer have?
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, this has been a "minor question" (both legal and political) for more than a century. And in determining the solution to this geopolitical issue, is how it comes to be applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
It is not as clear, cut'n'dry as many would have you believe.
(SUB QUESTION: Would there be a state ?)
Given no further information, what you described is called the Acquisition of Sovereignty by "(4) Cession: When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. e.g France cession of Louisiana to U.S in 1803."
However, usually, the parent sovereignty of the territory (in your example case Canada) would use force (paramilitary and police) to reestablish law and order under the supreme law in Canada, The Constitution.
(COMMENT)
The 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of States (AKA: The Montevideo Convention) very specifically states that: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is an example of Declarative Sovereignty. This is much like saying: I am independent and sovereign, therefore I am independent and sovereign. This has not happened much in history; there is usually some blood spilt over territorial control.
In point of fact, political science merely uses these to theories to describe the Acquisition of Sovereignty; but neither theory of recognition satisfactorily describes contemporary and present day practice. Just saying I am a state, does not confer the reality of being a state. The "All Palestine Government" said it was a state, and defined its permanent population, territory, and nature of the provisional government. BUT it never attained the capacity to enter into relations with the other states simply because it was not recognized. That was the significance of Mahmoud Abbas signing treaties, to demonstrate its ability to enter into relations with other states. There is a serious question as to whether the November 1988 State of Palestine ever achieved real independence or ever became sovereign. Many people believe that in reality, the State of Palestine is illusionary; that the Government of Mahmoud Abbas is actually a dysfunctional de jure (legitimate or lawful); but is not what it actual implies --- legally elected, and so recognized by other states. In fact, some Palestinians themselves argue that the Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas does not represent the legally elected government. And thus, if true, then the treaties signed by him are not really valid. But, whether or not Ramallah Government and President Mahmoud Abbas is actually the de jure government --- is NOT the question posed internationally. Mahmoud Abbas is recognized as the President of the Quasi-Republic for the State of Palestine. There is no one we can point to that holds the real reigns of power and control as the de facto power. Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity. Thus, just because HAMAS was never in effective control of the 1988 State of Palestine after the 2006 Elections, does not mean that HAMAS is not the real government. The answer is still ambiguous.
• Which government is recognized as the de jure Government of the State of Palestine?
Most Respectfully,
R
Which is why I protest the use of the term palestinian, since there is no palestine, there can be no palestinians. Oh there's lots of other logic that would lead to the same conclusion. But in the end, there is no entity called palestine ergo there can be no palestinians. They are Arab Muslims in Israel, nothing more.
So can a non entity have a government. Well in this case we have a none entity with numerous waring factions none of which seem to exorcise control. Hamas seems to rely heavily on mob rule and Fatah on welfare and the UN, how many times has our local Arab Muslims spoken out against Abbas and the 100 million or so in aid money he's squirreled away for himself so far ?
But to answer your question one would first have to assume there was a state of palestine. I don't think there is. Other than Gaza and Jordan of course, but even then neither are referred to as palestine. At which point we'd then have to review the various governing bodies and weigh each's legitimacy.
Is Hamas a legitimate government ? Well they were elected, but have they held regular elections since ?
Is the PA a legitimate government ? well they were elected as well, but have they hald regular elections ?
Is the Jordan a legitimate government ? They are a kingdom and last I checked its run by a prime minister. In its own twisted way its the only legitimate government IMHO. But it doesn't have effective control of the Arab Muslim mob or any lands beyond the Jordan River. So again, we have a legitimacy problem.
In the end we have a non existent state with no legitimate government able to speak for the non existent palestinian people.
Recalling that the term palestinian referenced only geographical location and for thousands of years had NOT referred to Arab Muslims in any way. As I recall it was first used in reference to Arab Muslims in about 1968 when the PLO was invented by an Egyptian.
Oh and having read the essay. Neither declaratory or constitutive theories of state seem adequate. Both ignore or minimize the tangible aspects of statehood when in practice those tangibles must be the primary consideration.
I see no other similar conditions in which a group of people, without effective government, without effective control of any given land area ( baring Gaza and Jordan of course ) and without the consent of its people, have been recognized as a state.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,065
- 4,660
- 1,815
Rocco, it is truly arduous trying to read your posts. It is like trying to dribble a football. You bounce around all over the place.
You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932.
Then there is: Central to the theme of the "Declarative View" comes the idea that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity.
LOL so explain to us again how the US recognized palestine as a state in 1932 ?
This aught to be good ;--)
A pity it did not become any more that a state in name only and then not until 1988. There is no mention of a Palestinian state in the treaty of Lausann, and the citizenship order clearly states that they become citizens of the mandatory and not a state of Palestine.
It takes a quantum leap and an contortion of proven facts to arrive at your conclusion. showing that you don't have any evidence to support your claims once again.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al
I have no doubt that you might have a comprehension problem.
Just a couple points.
• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
• The Treaty of Lausanne speaks to the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. It does not speak to the Arab Palestinians and does not make an obligation to them. The Articles of the Treaty are strictly between the Parties to the Treaty. In the case of independence and sovereignty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquishes all rights and title to the territory in question and renders the future of these territories to be settled by the allied Parties concerned.
• The Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 and the follow-on Consolidated Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925--1941 is exactly what it sounds like. It has to do with Article 7 of the Mandate. It has no impact on independence or sovereignty. The citizenship is driven by the power in authority, not the inhabitant. It is independence and sovereignty that determine citizenship --- not the other way around.
I think you would be had pressed to find any documentation that the US in 1932, recognized Palestine as other than a Mandate. In 1932, the Court of Justice recognized Britain as the Government of Palestine under the Mandate.
The US Ambassador to the UN says: "Direct Negotiations only way to establish a real Palestinian state." Jerusalem Post 4.11.2016
The participation in United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
Final Point:
• While many International Community Members say that they recognize the "State of Palestine;" does not actually mean that they practice what they preach.
Most Respectfully,
R
I have no doubt that you might have a comprehension problem.
(COMMENT)
Just a couple points.
• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
• The Treaty of Lausanne speaks to the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. It does not speak to the Arab Palestinians and does not make an obligation to them. The Articles of the Treaty are strictly between the Parties to the Treaty. In the case of independence and sovereignty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquishes all rights and title to the territory in question and renders the future of these territories to be settled by the allied Parties concerned.
• The Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 and the follow-on Consolidated Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925--1941 is exactly what it sounds like. It has to do with Article 7 of the Mandate. It has no impact on independence or sovereignty. The citizenship is driven by the power in authority, not the inhabitant. It is independence and sovereignty that determine citizenship --- not the other way around.
The US Ambassador to the UN says: "Direct Negotiations only way to establish a real Palestinian state." Jerusalem Post 4.11.2016
The participation in United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
• While many International Community Members say that they recognize the "State of Palestine;" does not actually mean that they practice what they preach.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,065
- 4,660
- 1,815
Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Pal-
estine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there
was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter’s natu-
ralization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national:
“[N]aturalization in any foreign state . . . constitutes expatriation. The
contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Na-
tions mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute
is wholly without merit.”
83
In support, the court said that the United
States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: “This the
Executive branch of the Government did in 1932,” the court explained,
“with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in
treaties of commerce.”
84
The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State De-
partment’s digest of international law, where it is mentioned as
indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.
85
http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/v32n4-quigley.pdf
So are you basing your entire opinion on that of just one blogger ? John Quigley ? A decidedly anti Israeli writer. While I'm sure lawyers and professors can be found who take both sides, I can't help but notice this particular blogger who you quote has elicited numerous rebuttals due to his radical views.
For instance
From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...9qEQvW-Sq_WzEiZENy2okw&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc
Quote
Professor Quigley intimates that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense. Yet, on May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli bor- der. By May 18, Syrian troops also prepared for battle along the Golan Heights,
3,000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had shelled Israel's farms and vil- lages for years. Egypt's Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), sta- tioned in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs
proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:
As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Is- rael. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which vill result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'
Two days later an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria's De- fense Minister, who openly proclaimed: "Our forces are now entirely ready.., to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland .... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.""' Presi- dent Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, another ostensible victim of Israeli "aggres- sion", joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear, to wipe Israel off the map."" On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria."9
Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as Professor Quigley maintains? It hardly seems possible. The legal appropriateness of Israel's resort to anticipatory self- defense is well-established in longstanding customary international law.' The Law of Nations is not a suicide pact; the world could not have expected Israel to wait patiently for its own annihilation. Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in Oc- tober 1973 when Egypt and Syria prepared to launch yet another war of aggres- sion against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with collective disappear- ance. Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life.'
End Quote
Another example of a radical view without merit expressed by Quigley would be
Quote
Professor Quigley argues that Israel has no claim on Jerusalem "beyond naked control." Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and a call for an end to Israel's sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel. When, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.- administered) city, it was not the Jews, but the Arabs, who refused its creation. When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and murdered all Jews who re- mained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line. During the 1967 War, Jordan's King Hussein, a man of peace according to Professor Quigley, declared on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth." Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949-1967 and its method of acquisition and brutal methods of occupation were entirely unacceptable under international law. Does Professor Quigley object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan? If he does, he has certainly neglected to mention them.
End Quote
There's a very interesting interview with the good professor that might be interesting to listen too
And the end of each assertation are the words
None of these three points is valid.
He falls into the trap as you by relying on flawed evidence. Any state/nation of the last 200 years has had a currency, a capital city, a government figurehead and a border control. Show just one of these for the state of Palestine prior to 1988, and not your usual British Palestine offerings
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
About the Afrikaners that Trump is letting in. Not so fast Tonto, they are not facing persecution, as claimed- Started by Zafira Cherry
- Replies: 22
