Israel violated Lebanons territory over 3000 times in 2012

[irosie91]

OK, you have said that. Can you prove that?

Tinnie----you have PROVEN ---that a mass of land was determined to be called
PALESTINE in 1922------You have not come even remotely close to proving
or even demonstrating that this mass of land is AN ARAB MUSLIM COUNTRY
-<<< your fantastical notion Your concept that 1922 was a MAGICAL YEAR---
in which determinations regarding land borders or even "countries" became
ETERNAL ----is ludicrous In order to support your idiotic fantasy----you prefer
to ignore the FACT that arab muslim residents did not being to SELF IDENTIFY
as "palestinians" until the 1960s when they developed the notion that
so doing would render them owners of that particular LAND MASS which got
named "palestine" as a nod to the Roman usage of 2000 years ago and since
BY JEWS. until it was redeemed in 1948---back to Israel/judea

for the record NABLUS is really NEOPOLIS so named by the
ROMANS 2000 years ago. to replace the name SHECHEM ---which
preceded it. Would you prefer that Jerusalem go back to the
ROMAN NAME AEILIA CAPITOLINA. A mere 1400 years ago the
city now called "medina" was "YATHRIB" Let's insist on
ETERNITY Pakistan did not exist in 1922----today it is filled with
MOGHUL OCCUPIERS OF HINDU INDIA

Oh boy! Israel's name game.

right----its a parlor game-----as opposed to your "borders" game
which is best conducted in the sewer

perhaps you can create a CALENDAR----based on the MAGICAL
YEAR-----1922 and even a scriptural writing .....
IN THE BEGINNING........ you could depict england
as CHRONUS the father of zeus

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I can't prove a negative. But in the US, we have an analogy.

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

(COMMENT)

Very similar to Palestine, a region, in the Eastern US, we have a Region known as the Appalachian Region. It even has its own commission.

The Appalachian Region, as defined in ARC's authorizing legislation, is a 205,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Forty-two percent of the Region's population is rural, compared with 20 percent of the national population.

The Region's economy, once highly dependent on mining, forestry, agriculture, chemical industries, and heavy industry, has become more diversified in recent times, and now includes a variety of manufacturing and service industries. In 1965, one in three Appalachians lived in poverty. In 2008, the Region's poverty rate was 18 percent. The number of Appalachian counties considered economically distressed was 223 in 1965; in fiscal year 2013 that number is 98.

SOURCE: The Appalachian Region - Appalachian Regional Commission

With Appalachian, I can present all the same evidence that it exists in the very same fashion as you do with Palestine. Yet, Applachia is not a state or country of itself. It has a defined region, it has a defined people, it is counted by the number of counties within it. Yet, it is not it own sovereignty in any way. Why, well through the process of elimination, I can show that all the territory is incorporated into another state or zone of control.

I will (probably) not find a web site or a document that says, "Appalachia is not a state or country."

In the case of Israel, it made an declaration of independence after the closure of the British Mandate over Palestine. In its application, it used the Annex of Res 181 as the description of its territory (although since then, by various treaties it has expended). This has been shown many times. While the Region of Palestine exists, it is not a sovereign territory (excluding the recent slight of hand by the PA and Abbas), any more than Appalachia is its own sovereignty.

I think I've beat this to death.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I can't prove a negative. But in the US, we have an analogy.

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

(COMMENT)

Very similar to Palestine, a region, in the Eastern US, we have a Region known as the Appalachian Region. It even has its own commission.

The Appalachian Region, as defined in ARC's authorizing legislation, is a 205,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Forty-two percent of the Region's population is rural, compared with 20 percent of the national population.

The Region's economy, once highly dependent on mining, forestry, agriculture, chemical industries, and heavy industry, has become more diversified in recent times, and now includes a variety of manufacturing and service industries. In 1965, one in three Appalachians lived in poverty. In 2008, the Region's poverty rate was 18 percent. The number of Appalachian counties considered economically distressed was 223 in 1965; in fiscal year 2013 that number is 98.

SOURCE: The Appalachian Region - Appalachian Regional Commission

With Appalachian, I can present all the same evidence that it exists in the very same fashion as you do with Palestine. Yet, Applachia is not a state or country of itself. It has a defined region, it has a defined people, it is counted by the number of counties within it. Yet, it is not it own sovereignty in any way. Why, well through the process of elimination, I can show that all the territory is incorporated into another state or zone of control.

I will (probably) not find a web site or a document that says, "Appalachia is not a state or country."

In the case of Israel, it made an declaration of independence after the closure of the British Mandate over Palestine. In its application, it used the Annex of Res 181 as the description of its territory (although since then, by various treaties it has expended). This has been shown many times. While the Region of Palestine exists, it is not a sovereign territory (excluding the recent slight of hand by the PA and Abbas), any more than Appalachia is its own sovereignty.

I think I've beat this to death.

Most Respectfully,
R

The difference between the Appalachian Region and Palestine is that Palestine has international borders and none of it is inside another state or country.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

P F Tinmore,

As I said, I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn't exist).

OK, you have said that. Can you prove that?

(COMMENT)

I can look at a map or a globe and tell you I don't see a State called Palestine. I can tell you that I see no membership in the UN for Palestine.

The burden of proof is on you. You claim a Government is know as the State of Palestine. Where is it and who is it's leader?

Most Respectfully,
R

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.

That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I can't prove a negative. But in the US, we have an analogy.

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

(COMMENT)

Very similar to Palestine, a region, in the Eastern US, we have a Region known as the Appalachian Region. It even has its own commission.

With Appalachian, I can present all the same evidence that it exists in the very same fashion as you do with Palestine. Yet, Applachia is not a state or country of itself. It has a defined region, it has a defined people, it is counted by the number of counties within it. Yet, it is not it own sovereignty in any way. Why, well through the process of elimination, I can show that all the territory is incorporated into another state or zone of control.

I will (probably) not find a web site or a document that says, "Appalachia is not a state or country."

In the case of Israel, it made an declaration of independence after the closure of the British Mandate over Palestine. In its application, it used the Annex of Res 181 as the description of its territory (although since then, by various treaties it has expended). This has been shown many times. While the Region of Palestine exists, it is not a sovereign territory (excluding the recent slight of hand by the PA and Abbas), any more than Appalachia is its own sovereignty.

I think I've beat this to death.

Most Respectfully,
R

The difference between the Appalachian Region and Palestine is that Palestine has international borders and none of it is inside another state or country.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

The difference between the Appalachian Region and Palestine is that Palestine has international borders

You're still sad the Jews have their own country and the Fakestinians have none. Tissue?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore,

As I said, I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn't exist).


(COMMENT)

I can look at a map or a globe and tell you I don't see a State called Palestine. I can tell you that I see no membership in the UN for Palestine.

The burden of proof is on you. You claim a Government is know as the State of Palestine. Where is it and who is it's leader?

Most Respectfully,
R

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.

That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.

Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.

That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.

Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................

Tinny, powered by hate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.

That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.

Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................

Tinny, powered by hate.

Interesting.

When did I ever say that I hate anyone.

Post links.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This simply doesn't apply.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

(COMMENT)

Actually, it is the other way around.

Palestine has no international borders. The regional boundaries that describe old Palestine are all inside some other country or zone of control.

The quotation doesn't apply to Palestine. And even if it did, then it would apply to Israel and all the surrounding states as well.

It is a foolish argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This simply doesn't apply.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

(COMMENT)

Actually, it is the other way around.

Palestine has no international borders. The regional boundaries that describe old Palestine are all inside some other country or zone of control.

The quotation doesn't apply to Palestine. And even if it did, then it would apply to Israel and all the surrounding states as well.

It is a foolish argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

Please expound. Your post is making no sense.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are two points that were made.

• First, if the quotation cited applies to Palestine, then it also must equally apply to the current states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; or not at all. This has one set of implications.

• Second, the borders of Palestine are time sensitive. What was considered Palestine in 1916, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, is NOT the same Palestine after the creations of the French and British Mandates; and the subsequent independents of Lebanon, Jordan, and then Syria.

Please expound. Your post is making no sense.

(COMMENT)

There is a book I can recommend, that might help you understand what the term Palestine means and its administration into modern times.

Boundaries of modern Palestine, 1840-1947
By Gideon Biger

• Pages 220 thru 225

Just to simplify things, Palestine, before the Mandates (French and British) was an area much larger than Israel is today (even if you include the Occupied Territories). Palestine, was essentially all of what we generally call today, the Middle East. It assumed much of souther Lebanon, East across the Jordan River, and into Syria. It is often describe as a delimitations process. But at no time were the boundaries, as political markers, not subject to negotiation. Palestine has not had international borders in more than 600 years, and has never been a country. But it is true to say that the has been subject to several different sovereignties over time.

(THE QUOTATION)

"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,..."​

Citations (supra) from a Pan-American convention, while a nice research piece, has little or no relevance to the activity under discussion pertaining to the Middle East and the Recognition of Palestine. But if it did, then insert the word "Israel" in place of the word "state." If it were an applicable reference, then it would apply equally to every state, and that would negate the sovereignty of Palestine and these international boundaries you persist in calling "international borders after 1949." There is no government of record and no leadership claiming recognition Until recently). In fact the Palestinian and Arab regionals rejected the two-state solution that would have created the State of Palestine.

(THE LOGIC)

If you believe in the Pan-American principle you cited, supra, then it must also be true that you believe:

The political existence of the state "of Israel" is independent of recognition by the other states "or the Palestinians." Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence "from the destructive forces of representing the Palestinians."​

It is either true for all, or none.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are two points that were made.

• First, if the quotation cited applies to Palestine, then it also must equally apply to the current states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; or not at all. This has one set of implications.

• Second, the borders of Palestine are time sensitive. What was considered Palestine in 1916, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, is NOT the same Palestine after the creations of the French and British Mandates; and the subsequent independents of Lebanon, Jordan, and then Syria.

Please expound. Your post is making no sense.

(COMMENT)

There is a book I can recommend, that might help you understand what the term Palestine means and its administration into modern times.

Boundaries of modern Palestine, 1840-1947
By Gideon Biger

• Pages 220 thru 225

Just to simplify things, Palestine, before the Mandates (French and British) was an area much larger than Israel is today (even if you include the Occupied Territories). Palestine, was essentially all of what we generally call today, the Middle East. It assumed much of souther Lebanon, East across the Jordan River, and into Syria. It is often describe as a delimitations process. But at no time were the boundaries, as political markers, not subject to negotiation. Palestine has not had international borders in more than 600 years, and has never been a country. But it is true to say that the has been subject to several different sovereignties over time.

(THE QUOTATION)

"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,..."​

Citations (supra) from a Pan-American convention, while a nice research piece, has little or no relevance to the activity under discussion pertaining to the Middle East and the Recognition of Palestine.

Not true.
--------------
Montevideo Convention, in full Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 (and entering into force the following year), that established the standard definition of a state under international law.

Montevideo Convention (international agreement [1933]) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
--------------

Montevideo established international law. It applies everywhere.

But if it did, then insert the word "Israel" in place of the word "state." If it were an applicable reference, then it would apply equally to every state, and that would negate the sovereignty of Palestine and these international boundaries you persist in calling "international borders after 1949."

Here again, not true.

The League of Nations Covanent recognized the rights of the people of the place to self determination.
---------------
ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
---------------
The right to create their own state is in the normal inhabitants inside a defined area. Nowhere is it ever mentioned that foreigners have a right to self determination. In fact external interference is illegal under international law.
---------------
Criteria for the right to self-determination

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state; (2) freely associated with another state or (3) integrated with another state after freely having expressed their will to do so . The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations .

The right to self-determination - IHL
---------------
Statehood is the realization of the right to self determination not a prerequisite. To say that they never had a sovereign state is irrelevant.

There is no government of record and no leadership claiming recognition Until recently). In fact the Palestinian and Arab regionals rejected the two-state solution that would have created the State of Palestine.

(THE LOGIC)

If you believe in the Pan-American principle you cited, supra, then it must also be true that you believe:

The political existence of the state "of Israel" is independent of recognition by the other states "or the Palestinians." Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence "from the destructive forces of representing the Palestinians."​

It is either true for all, or none.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sincerely,
Paul

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(POINT of CLARIFICATION)

Whereas the The Covenant of the League of Nations (LONs - 1924)(now the UN) is international law binding to all members of the LONs (UN), the Montevideo Convention (1933) is international law binding to the limited signatories:

• United States,
• Argentina,
• Brazil,
• Chile,
• Colombia,
• Cuba, the
• Dominican Republic,
• Ecuador,
• El Salvador,
• Guatemala,
• Haiti,
• Honduras,
• Mexico,
• Nicaragua,
• Panama,
• Paraguay,
• Peru,
• Uruguay,
• Venezuela

The commonality among these nations is that they are all in either North, Central or South America. The law is internationally binding between these selected nations. It is not universal law. If it were, it would be that much more against the Arab/Palestinian insurgency in the right to self-determination by the Jewish Palestinians that created Israel. (As much as these nations would like to impose international law on the rest of the world, they actually cannot.)

(THE QUOTATION)

"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,..."​

Citations (supra) from a Pan-American convention, while a nice research piece, has little or no relevance to the activity under discussion pertaining to the Middle East and the Recognition of Palestine.

Not true.
--------------
Montevideo Convention, in full Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 (and entering into force the following year), that established the standard definition of a state under international law.
Montevideo Convention (international agreement [1933]) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

You forgot to mention the context of the International Law; being between the attendees of the Convention. But, I will grant you, that it is interesting legal precedence. It is Pan-American Law. I even agree with the principles cited.

The League of Nations Covanent recognized the rights of the people of the place to self determination.
---------------
ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
---------------
The right to create their own state is in the normal inhabitants inside a defined area. Nowhere is it ever mentioned that foreigners have a right to self determination. In fact external interference is illegal under international law.
---------------
Criteria for the right to self-determination

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state; (2) freely associated with another state or (3) integrated with another state after freely having expressed their will to do so . The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations .

The right to self-determination - IHL
---------------
Statehood is the realization of the right to self determination not a prerequisite. To say that they never had a sovereign state is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Ah, yes! Notice that last bit: These are "or" statements. I like it, I think I'll restate it with emphasis.

A (Jewish) people (of Palestine) can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state; (STOP) That would be the announced Independence of Israel in 1948.​

THEN:

"The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations." (STOP) This would be the acceptance by the General Assembly and the subsequent Treaties Arrangements between the neighboring states.​

(COMMENT)

Whatever "Rights to Self-Determination" the Palestinians had, it cannot include that land now designated as Lebanon, that land now designated as Jordan, that land now designated as Syria, that land now designated as Egypt, OR that land now designated as Israel. The inhabitance of those lands have exercise their rights and "realized" statehood. But the Palestinians never established the "State of Palestine;" they never even tried (until very recently). (And that is very relevant.) In fact, they "rejected" that notion. (That is also relevant.)

The right to create their own state is in the normal inhabitants inside a defined area. Nowhere is it ever mentioned that foreigners have a right to self determination. In fact external interference is illegal under international law.

(QUESTION)

Who has denied the Rights of the Palestinian to establish their independence?
Who are these foreigners you mention? (Is this a 60 year old immigration issue? Is this a right-to-return issue?)

(SIDE-BAR)

Let's determine what the nature of the objection is, and the basis for the Palestinian insurgency against the State of Israel.

• What is it that the Palestinians want in exchange for peace?
• What is the basis for the Palestinian demand?

(CONTINUATION)

I think it is the other way around. It was the Arab Nations that attacked Israel when it attempted to exercise its right to self-determination; an Arab/Palestinian move against the very principles of international law that you cite. The Arab World is the external influence. And since that time, the Palestinians have mustered additional external Persian influence to further challenge Israeli "realization" of Israeli statehood. Clearly, the recognition of the State of Israel was not illegal as it was accepted by the very body that created the international law. And Israel has not interfered with recent moves by the Palestinians in the attempt to realize their independence through internationally accepted processes.

So, yes, I find that you are correct. Israel is under siege by forces that want to undermine Israeli sovereignty, attained by legal means, in the furtherance of their "right to self-determination," by Arab and Palestinian insurgents using foreign weapons, supported by Persians and allied regional Arabs, in violation of the very laws you cite.

In the mean time, Israel is not interfering with the move by the Palestinian Authority to realize the right of the remainder of Palestinians to establish their state.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(POINT of CLARIFICATION)

Whereas the The Covenant of the League of Nations (LONs - 1924)(now the UN) is international law binding to all members of the LONs (UN), the Montevideo Convention (1933) is international law binding to the limited signatories:

• United States,
• Argentina,
• Brazil,
• Chile,
• Colombia,
• Cuba, the
• Dominican Republic,
• Ecuador,
• El Salvador,
• Guatemala,
• Haiti,
• Honduras,
• Mexico,
• Nicaragua,
• Panama,
• Paraguay,
• Peru,
• Uruguay,
• Venezuela

The commonality among these nations is that they are all in either North, Central or South America. The law is internationally binding between these selected nations. It is not universal law. If it were, it would be that much more against the Arab/Palestinian insurgency in the right to self-determination by the Jewish Palestinians that created Israel. (As much as these nations would like to impose international law on the rest of the world, they actually cannot.)

The states that have signed this convention are limited to the Americas:[6]

However, as a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.[7]

Montevideo Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self Determination

There is no question that the Muslims, Christians, and Jews whose normal residence was inside Palestine's international borders when they were defined in 1922 are the ones with the right to self determination inside those borders. But who else can claim that right?

Surely the descendants of those Palestinians, by virtue of their birth, have that right.

Immigrants

Anyone moving to Palestine to obtain citizenship and to be a part of Palestine's population can also enjoy the right to self determination. Indeed, one of the goals of the Palestine Mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

However, that is not what happened in Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who moved to Palestine were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a separate Jewish state inside Palestine.

Israel was created by foreigners, on behalf of a foreign organization, without the consent of the Palestinians, and imposed on Palestine by military force.

I don't see anything in international law that gives them the right to do that.

 

[irosie91]

Tinnie suffers from a TINKERBELLE COMPLEX defined as---"if one says and gets other to repeat the phrase "I DO BELIEVE IN FAIRIES" over and over and over ----FAIRIES WILL APPEAR

 

[toastman]

I love how Tinnie says that Rocco's post doesn't make sense, when in reality Rocco's post make the most sense out of anyone here. He explains everything so clearly, Rocco, you're great

 

[P F Tinmore]

I love how Tinnie says that Rocco's post doesn't make sense, when in reality Rocco's post make the most sense out of anyone here. He explains everything so clearly, Rocco, you're great

Rocco is cool. Unlike most posters he actually discusses issues.

 

[irosie91]

You do not have to prove a negative.

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949. BTW, this was after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

All you have to do is show documents where Israel acquired any Palestinian land and defined international borders.

Thanks, Paul

I have already posted documents showing that Palestine still existed inside its international borders as of 1949.

That is awesome! Except there was no country of Palestine in 1949, or ever.

Tinmore is the Energizer Bunny. He just goes on and on and on......................

But Tinnie does have a point North america still existed in its international borders
as of 1949 too India still existed inside its international borders as of 1945
and as of 1949 so Pakistan does not exist at all------or it is about to be digested.
When I was a child the PLANET PLUTO existed----now the planet Pluto does
not exist I do not know in which country my greatgrand father was born----because
he was born in the AUSTRIAN HAPSBURG EMPIRE_----and served in a military
under some guy named 'FRANZ JOSEF I have no idea what are the INTERNATIONAL
BORDERS OF THE AUSTRIAN HAPBURG EMPIRE<<< so it never existed I believe that
Franz Josef did exist-----but then again ----I also believe that Columbus existed and
even Moses------so why ask me? I believe that queen elizabeth exists----but I am
not sure if Prince Charles exists-----they keep up with a version of that same kid but
with bigger ears

 

[Hossfly]

I love how Tinnie says that Rocco's post doesn't make sense, when in reality Rocco's post make the most sense out of anyone here. He explains everything so clearly, Rocco, you're great

Rocco is cool. Unlike most posters he actually discusses issues.

Facts about issues that fail to penetrate that thick skull you're wearing.

 

[irosie91]

Mr R I had been under the impression----in my childhood (long ago)
that what became JORDAN----had largely been part of the old "palestine" of
the Ottoman empire-----but not the OLDER palestine ----of---constantine.
or older than that ---like the 'palestine' of king Herod ALSO ----uhm, I
am little confused about "SAMARIA" vs "JUDEA" Unlike our dear tinmore, I am convinced that 'country' or 'nation' borders are not immutable------but for the sake of future "discussion" well----just add some information

tell me a bit about GAZA-----was gaza ever part of what people called "palestine" -----it seems logical to me that it was in roman times---It does not seem logical to me that arab refugees should have ended up in Gaza at all Based on the hostilities between Israel and Egypt it should
have been left as a no-man's land----but no one asked me. Of all places
to be "INTERNATIONALIZED" Gaza seems like the best place.... Strategically it seems to me to be a dangerous place to put people. My all
time best proposal is PUT THE UN BUILDING THERE ----and all the diplomats----easing the parking problem in Manhattan There is lots of land in the middle east that is nicer than Gaza for people to actually LIVE and FARM and
build businesses. Of course the UN building in Gaza would also create jobs
and opportunities for that are today Gazans and----neighboring peoples