P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,887
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #301
The Order in Council was back when Palestine was occupied Turkish territory.
By 1924 Palestine was a state. Different set of rules.
Israel's Lies
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
By 1924 Palestine was a state. Different set of rules.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,887
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #302
Oz and the Orchestra
Platinum Member
Much as I have a great deal of sympathy for those who survived the Holocaust and wanted to flee Europe.
They had no right to all converge on Palestine. Jews had abandoned their promised land nearly two millenium ago.
The British should have stopped them. Israel is a modern concept and had no right to exist.
Today however we have to accept that Israel does exist, and a two state solution should be forced on her, which she has pulled every trick in the book to prevent.
Israel has broken more UN resolutions than Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam H.
It is about time the US stopped blocking sanctions, and using Israel as a look out post for its middle east interests.
The US should butt out of interfering in global hotspots and keep her interests within her own borders.
Sooner or later the US will stop propping up Israel with finance and when on her own there will be an almighty reckoning.
As it stands, - what country puts its own PM on trial for corruption while still serving.
Israel today is a corrupt, racist, fascist enclave with little to offer the world accept aggression.
They had no right to all converge on Palestine. Jews had abandoned their promised land nearly two millenium ago.
The British should have stopped them. Israel is a modern concept and had no right to exist.
Today however we have to accept that Israel does exist, and a two state solution should be forced on her, which she has pulled every trick in the book to prevent.
Israel has broken more UN resolutions than Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam H.
It is about time the US stopped blocking sanctions, and using Israel as a look out post for its middle east interests.
The US should butt out of interfering in global hotspots and keep her interests within her own borders.
Sooner or later the US will stop propping up Israel with finance and when on her own there will be an almighty reckoning.
As it stands, - what country puts its own PM on trial for corruption while still serving.
Israel today is a corrupt, racist, fascist enclave with little to offer the world accept aggression.
So.... as usual, you have retreated to the nonsensical meme ''the Treaty of Lausanne invented the state of Pal'istan''.
That tired slogan needs to be retired.
Indeed. If you're claiming that the geographic area called Palestine was area occupied by the Turks, then clearly, the Arabs occupying the geographic area called Palestine were a part of that occupation.
Indeed, that is consistent with the history of the Arab-Moslem colonial settler project.
Sunni Man
Diamond Member
Your assessment of the terrorist state of Israel is spot on. ...
Oz and the Orchestra
Platinum Member
Well at least we agree on something!Your assessment of the terrorist state of Israel is spot on. ...
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ Oz and the Orchestra, et al,
BLUF: This is an opposing view that is clear and simple, yet easily challenged.
Sympathy is actually NOT a logical approach to the issue (not relevant). It is in the family of Logical Fallacies called an Appeal to Emotions.
None the less, because many people express this view it needs to be discussed on an unemotional basis.
For whatever reason, a century ago, the Principal Allied Powers made these six (6) momentous decisions (and more). These are the unemotional facts from the beginning. I know it is hard, today, to think like the leaders of the Principal Allied Powers who just came through the Great War. But it is impossible to apply today's political policies and customary laws to that time frame and those conditions; just as it is quite impossible for most people to understand that the political positions held by the leaders of America. America was, in 1920, one of the world's colonial powers that held Puerto Rico, Philippines, Midway Island, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, and many more at different periods. In fact, the US is one of the four nations (the remaining colonial powers) that the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) considers holding "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” (We are a colonial Power, but not as big as we once were. One of the most interesting holding we once had was Cuba (1899-1902, and 1906-1909). A consequence of giving Cuba independence was that it almost caused a nuclear war in the Kennedy Administration.)
Yeah, I have heard and seen this many times. And in some perspective, Israel has opposed more "non-binding" resolutions then some dictators. But to compare Israel to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam is simply ridiculous and only diminishes the credibility of your claims and accusations.
If you have a specific accusation, then I suggest you make it & I'll address it. But I'll say upfront, Israel is not perfect; no country of any active world participation is... So, I suspect, you can find a "Binding Resolution" that has been ignored or violated. So go for it...
(COMMENT)
Israel is an ally of the US. Maybe not a perfect ally, but none the less, an ally. And like the US, one of the elements in the foundation of its independence was "religious freedoms." The Allied Powers of the Great War, as well as, the Allied Powers of World War II, understood the plight of the Jewish People and saw a unique opportunity to correct a long-standing humanitarian issue. And both sets of Allied Powers came to the same conclusion:
This Resolution (dated 29 November 1947) is titled the "Future government of Palestine." It was a nonbinding recommendation. And either party concerned could accept or reject. The Arab Palestinians rejected the opportunity to establish a self-governing institution. However, the Jewish People accepted the opportunity.
( ∑ Ω )
I look forward to your challenge.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ Oz and the Orchestra, et al,
BLUF: This is an opposing view that is clear and simple, yet easily challenged.
(COMMENT)
Sympathy is actually NOT a logical approach to the issue (not relevant). It is in the family of Logical Fallacies called an Appeal to Emotions.
None the less, because many people express this view it needs to be discussed on an unemotional basis.
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision "undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." (The non-Jewish Community being the "habitual Inhabitants" or better know today as the "Arab Palestinians.")
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision that the "Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (That being the "Balfour" Declaration.)
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that gave recognition to the "historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine."
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that "selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine."
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided, in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land."
For whatever reason, a century ago, the Principal Allied Powers made these six (6) momentous decisions (and more). These are the unemotional facts from the beginning. I know it is hard, today, to think like the leaders of the Principal Allied Powers who just came through the Great War. But it is impossible to apply today's political policies and customary laws to that time frame and those conditions; just as it is quite impossible for most people to understand that the political positions held by the leaders of America. America was, in 1920, one of the world's colonial powers that held Puerto Rico, Philippines, Midway Island, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, and many more at different periods. In fact, the US is one of the four nations (the remaining colonial powers) that the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) considers holding "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” (We are a colonial Power, but not as big as we once were. One of the most interesting holding we once had was Cuba (1899-1902, and 1906-1909). A consequence of giving Cuba independence was that it almost caused a nuclear war in the Kennedy Administration.)
(COMMENT)
Yeah, I have heard and seen this many times. And in some perspective, Israel has opposed more "non-binding" resolutions then some dictators. But to compare Israel to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam is simply ridiculous and only diminishes the credibility of your claims and accusations.
If you have a specific accusation, then I suggest you make it & I'll address it. But I'll say upfront, Israel is not perfect; no country of any active world participation is... So, I suspect, you can find a "Binding Resolution" that has been ignored or violated. So go for it...
(COMMENT)
Israel is an ally of the US. Maybe not a perfect ally, but none the less, an ally. And like the US, one of the elements in the foundation of its independence was "religious freedoms." The Allied Powers of the Great War, as well as, the Allied Powers of World War II, understood the plight of the Jewish People and saw a unique opportunity to correct a long-standing humanitarian issue. And both sets of Allied Powers came to the same conclusion:
A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947 said:
This Resolution (dated 29 November 1947) is titled the "Future government of Palestine." It was a nonbinding recommendation. And either party concerned could accept or reject. The Arab Palestinians rejected the opportunity to establish a self-governing institution. However, the Jewish People accepted the opportunity.
[/FONT]PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE[FONT=arial] said:
( ∑ Ω )
I look forward to your challenge.
Most Respectfully,
R
Oz and the Orchestra
Platinum Member
I'm taking time to absorb your lengthy post. Need to do just a little research before I can fully take on your challenge, but I will definitely get back to you.RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ Oz and the Orchestra, et al,
BLUF: This is an opposing view that is clear and simple, yet easily challenged.
(COMMENT)
Sympathy is actually NOT a logical approach to the issue (not relevant). It is in the family of Logical Fallacies called an Appeal to Emotions.
None the less, because many people express this view it needs to be discussed on an unemotional basis.
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision "undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." (The non-Jewish Community being the "habitual Inhabitants" or better know today as the "Arab Palestinians.")◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision that the "Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (That being the "Balfour" Declaration.)◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that gave recognition to the "historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that "selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided, in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land."
For whatever reason, a century ago, the Principal Allied Powers made these six (6) momentous decisions (and more). These are the unemotional facts from the beginning. I know it is hard, today, to think like the leaders of the Principal Allied Powers who just came through the Great War. But it is impossible to apply today's political policies and customary laws to that time frame and those conditions; just as it is quite impossible for most people to understand that the political positions held by the leaders of America. America was, in 1920, one of the world's colonial powers that held Puerto Rico, Philippines, Midway Island, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, and many more at different periods. In fact, the US is one of the four nations (the remaining colonial powers) that the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) considers holding "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” (We are a colonial Power, but not as big as we once were. One of the most interesting holding we once had was Cuba (1899-1902, and 1906-1909). A consequence of giving Cuba independence was that it almost caused a nuclear war in the Kennedy Administration.)
(COMMENT)
Yeah, I have heard and seen this many times. And in some perspective, Israel has opposed more "non-binding" resolutions then some dictators. But to compare Israel to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam is simply ridiculous and only diminishes the credibility of your claims and accusations.
If you have a specific accusation, then I suggest you make it & I'll address it. But I'll say upfront, Israel is not perfect; no country of any active world participation is... So, I suspect, you can find a "Binding Resolution" that has been ignored or violated. So go for it...
(COMMENT)
Israel is an ally of the US. Maybe not a perfect ally, but none the less, an ally. And like the US, one of the elements in the foundation of its independence was "religious freedoms." The Allied Powers of the Great War, as well as, the Allied Powers of World War II, understood the plight of the Jewish People and saw a unique opportunity to correct a long-standing humanitarian issue. And both sets of Allied Powers came to the same conclusion:
A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947 said:
This Resolution (dated 29 November 1947) is titled the "Future government of Palestine." It was a nonbinding recommendation. And either party concerned could accept or reject. The Arab Palestinians rejected the opportunity to establish a self-governing institution. However, the Jewish People accepted the opportunity.
[/FONT]PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE[FONT=arial] said:
( ∑ Ω )
I look forward to your challenge.
Most Respectfully,
R
Oz
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,887
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #310
Why do you always side with the killers, thieves, and liars?RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ Oz and the Orchestra, et al,
BLUF: This is an opposing view that is clear and simple, yet easily challenged.
(COMMENT)
Sympathy is actually NOT a logical approach to the issue (not relevant). It is in the family of Logical Fallacies called an Appeal to Emotions.
None the less, because many people express this view it needs to be discussed on an unemotional basis.
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision "undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." (The non-Jewish Community being the "habitual Inhabitants" or better know today as the "Arab Palestinians.")◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision that the "Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (That being the "Balfour" Declaration.)◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that gave recognition to the "historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that "selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided, in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land."
For whatever reason, a century ago, the Principal Allied Powers made these six (6) momentous decisions (and more). These are the unemotional facts from the beginning. I know it is hard, today, to think like the leaders of the Principal Allied Powers who just came through the Great War. But it is impossible to apply today's political policies and customary laws to that time frame and those conditions; just as it is quite impossible for most people to understand that the political positions held by the leaders of America. America was, in 1920, one of the world's colonial powers that held Puerto Rico, Philippines, Midway Island, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, and many more at different periods. In fact, the US is one of the four nations (the remaining colonial powers) that the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) considers holding "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” (We are a colonial Power, but not as big as we once were. One of the most interesting holding we once had was Cuba (1899-1902, and 1906-1909). A consequence of giving Cuba independence was that it almost caused a nuclear war in the Kennedy Administration.)
(COMMENT)
Yeah, I have heard and seen this many times. And in some perspective, Israel has opposed more "non-binding" resolutions then some dictators. But to compare Israel to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam is simply ridiculous and only diminishes the credibility of your claims and accusations.
If you have a specific accusation, then I suggest you make it & I'll address it. But I'll say upfront, Israel is not perfect; no country of any active world participation is... So, I suspect, you can find a "Binding Resolution" that has been ignored or violated. So go for it...
(COMMENT)
Israel is an ally of the US. Maybe not a perfect ally, but none the less, an ally. And like the US, one of the elements in the foundation of its independence was "religious freedoms." The Allied Powers of the Great War, as well as, the Allied Powers of World War II, understood the plight of the Jewish People and saw a unique opportunity to correct a long-standing humanitarian issue. And both sets of Allied Powers came to the same conclusion:
A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947 said:
This Resolution (dated 29 November 1947) is titled the "Future government of Palestine." It was a nonbinding recommendation. And either party concerned could accept or reject. The Arab Palestinians rejected the opportunity to establish a self-governing institution. However, the Jewish People accepted the opportunity.
[/FONT]PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE[FONT=arial] said:
( ∑ Ω )
I look forward to your challenge.
Most Respectfully,
R
What is in it for you?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Why do you always side with the killers, thieves, and liars?RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ Oz and the Orchestra, et al,
BLUF: This is an opposing view that is clear and simple, yet easily challenged.
(COMMENT)
Sympathy is actually NOT a logical approach to the issue (not relevant). It is in the family of Logical Fallacies called an Appeal to Emotions.
None the less, because many people express this view it needs to be discussed on an unemotional basis.
◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision "undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." (The non-Jewish Community being the "habitual Inhabitants" or better know today as the "Arab Palestinians.")◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) made the decision that the "Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (That being the "Balfour" Declaration.)◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that gave recognition to the "historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) that "selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided, in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."◈ It was the Convention at San Remo (April 1920) where the Allied Powers of the Great War (WWI) decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land."
For whatever reason, a century ago, the Principal Allied Powers made these six (6) momentous decisions (and more). These are the unemotional facts from the beginning. I know it is hard, today, to think like the leaders of the Principal Allied Powers who just came through the Great War. But it is impossible to apply today's political policies and customary laws to that time frame and those conditions; just as it is quite impossible for most people to understand that the political positions held by the leaders of America. America was, in 1920, one of the world's colonial powers that held Puerto Rico, Philippines, Midway Island, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, and many more at different periods. In fact, the US is one of the four nations (the remaining colonial powers) that the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) considers holding "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” (We are a colonial Power, but not as big as we once were. One of the most interesting holding we once had was Cuba (1899-1902, and 1906-1909). A consequence of giving Cuba independence was that it almost caused a nuclear war in the Kennedy Administration.)
(COMMENT)
Yeah, I have heard and seen this many times. And in some perspective, Israel has opposed more "non-binding" resolutions then some dictators. But to compare Israel to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam is simply ridiculous and only diminishes the credibility of your claims and accusations.
If you have a specific accusation, then I suggest you make it & I'll address it. But I'll say upfront, Israel is not perfect; no country of any active world participation is... So, I suspect, you can find a "Binding Resolution" that has been ignored or violated. So go for it...
(COMMENT)
Israel is an ally of the US. Maybe not a perfect ally, but none the less, an ally. And like the US, one of the elements in the foundation of its independence was "religious freedoms." The Allied Powers of the Great War, as well as, the Allied Powers of World War II, understood the plight of the Jewish People and saw a unique opportunity to correct a long-standing humanitarian issue. And both sets of Allied Powers came to the same conclusion:
A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947 said:
This Resolution (dated 29 November 1947) is titled the "Future government of Palestine." It was a nonbinding recommendation. And either party concerned could accept or reject. The Arab Palestinians rejected the opportunity to establish a self-governing institution. However, the Jewish People accepted the opportunity.
[/FONT]PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE[FONT=arial] said:
( ∑ Ω )
I look forward to your challenge.
Most Respectfully,
R
What is in it for you?
Why do you always side with the killers, thieves, and liars?
Why do you?
Good work. Keep it up you guys. Need more like you to continue all the Arab countries uniting with Israel.Well at least we agree on something!Your assessment of the terrorist state of Israel is spot on. ...
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,887
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #314
I have many times but my posts were too complicated for you and they went over your head.
Here is just one,
That silly YouTube video does nothing to support your claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented the “State of Pallyland”.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,887
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #317
I never said it did. It was just one treaty in the process.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
BLUF: FOR P F Tinmore: It is almost as if you didn't even listen to the lecture. She explains the difference between "Citizenship" (as in citizen of a state) and Nationality (a relationship between the individual and international law).
(POINTS TO CONSIDER)
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. (ie Citizenship is Domestic Law)
Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege
Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Non-retroactivity ratione personae
She opens with the explains that "citizenship is domestic law, and that a state, through its internal laws determines which residents have the preferred status. Nationality does not necessarily grant citizenship; in fact, in many cases, it does not.
You often refer to The 1924 (I take to mean) Treaty of Lausanne when speaking "Palestinian Statehood." Noting in the Treaty establishes "statehood" in the territories under Mandate. Nothing in the Treaty deals with "citizenship."
This is the Paradox in her argument:
The Ottoman Empire had no Distinct Region as "Palestine." It was the Vaylet and Sanjax, of which none had baoundaries corresponding to "Palestine" as defined by the Government of Palestine and the Mandatory in the Palestine Order in Council.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
BLUF: FOR P F Tinmore: It is almost as if you didn't even listen to the lecture. She explains the difference between "Citizenship" (as in citizen of a state) and Nationality (a relationship between the individual and international law).
(POINTS TO CONSIDER)
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. (ie Citizenship is Domestic Law)
Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege
1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Non-retroactivity ratione personae
1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.
Article 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976)1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
(COMMENT)She opens with the explains that "citizenship is domestic law, and that a state, through its internal laws determines which residents have the preferred status. Nationality does not necessarily grant citizenship; in fact, in many cases, it does not.
Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
You often refer to The 1924 (I take to mean) Treaty of Lausanne when speaking "Palestinian Statehood." Noting in the Treaty establishes "statehood" in the territories under Mandate. Nothing in the Treaty deals with "citizenship."
This is the Paradox in her argument:
The Ottoman Empire had no Distinct Region as "Palestine." It was the Vaylet and Sanjax, of which none had baoundaries corresponding to "Palestine" as defined by the Government of Palestine and the Mandatory in the Palestine Order in Council.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,887
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #319
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
BLUF: FOR P F Tinmore: It is almost as if you didn't even listen to the lecture. She explains the difference between "Citizenship" (as in citizen of a state) and Nationality (a relationship between the individual and international law).
(POINTS TO CONSIDER)
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. (ie Citizenship is Domestic Law)
Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege
1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Non-retroactivity ratione personae
1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.Article 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976)
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.(COMMENT)
She opens with the explains that "citizenship is domestic law, and that a state, through its internal laws determines which residents have the preferred status. Nationality does not necessarily grant citizenship; in fact, in many cases, it does not.
Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
You often refer to The 1924 (I take to mean) Treaty of Lausanne when speaking "Palestinian Statehood." Noting in the Treaty establishes "statehood" in the territories under Mandate. Nothing in the Treaty deals with "citizenship."
This is the Paradox in her argument:
The Ottoman Empire had no Distinct Region as "Palestine." It was the Vaylet and Sanjax, of which none had baoundaries corresponding to "Palestine" as defined by the Government of Palestine and the Mandatory in the Palestine Order in Council.
Most Respectfully,
R
Holy verbosity, Batman!
Dr. Akram addressed citizenship and nationality.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
When the DOJ declares a person is in the gangs, how do they verify that to evict the terrorist?- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 7
