Israel's Lies

[toastman]

The Cool Aid Club has spoken.

You don't find it odd that your contrived version of history is ruthlessly contradicted by facts?

Very well said post!

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Cool Aid Club has spoken.

You don't find it odd that your contrived version of history is ruthlessly contradicted by facts?

Very well said post!

No link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

But enough about you.

 

[Hollie]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

Link?

 

[toastman]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

No, you just can’t handle he truth, as usual.
Why is it that you post jibberish yet never have anything to back it up? I mean, do you enjoy lying ??

 

[Picaro]

The message board equivalent of Groundhog Day: The Movie. Too bad for Tinmore the issue was settled in 1935, and he has no recourse but whining.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

No, you just can’t handle he truth, as usual.
Why is it that you post jibberish yet never have anything to back it up? I mean, do you enjoy lying ??

What truth? None of you have substantiated your claim.

 

[Hollie]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

No, you just can’t handle he truth, as usual.
Why is it that you post jibberish yet never have anything to back it up? I mean, do you enjoy lying ??

What truth? None of you have substantiated your claim.

You mean other than the clearly substantiated claims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

No, you just can’t handle he truth, as usual.
Why is it that you post jibberish yet never have anything to back it up? I mean, do you enjoy lying ??

What truth? None of you have substantiated your claim.

You mean other than the clearly substantiated claims.

Do you mean when y'all starting dancing around the issue?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

BLUF: You just keep us going in circles.

Do you mean when y'all starting dancing around the issue?

(COMMENT)

State your question (the Issue you say we are dancing around) clearly. Distinctively and Specifically!


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Two pages of blabber and nobody substantiated their claim.

No, you just can’t handle he truth, as usual.
Why is it that you post jibberish yet never have anything to back it up? I mean, do you enjoy lying ??

What truth? None of you have substantiated your claim.

You mean other than the clearly substantiated claims.

Do you mean when y'all starting dancing around the issue?

No. I mean when you cut and paste your silly emoticons instead of addressing the issues.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

BLUF: You just keep us going in circles.

Do you mean when y'all starting dancing around the issue?

(COMMENT)

State your question (the Issue you say we are dancing around) clearly. Distinctively and Specifically!


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has had a long term propaganda campaign denying the existence of Palestine.

Point made.

Prove your point.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

BLUF: I doubt that Israel would spend a dime on this question.

Israel has had a long term propaganda campaign denying the existence of Palestine.

Point made.

Prove your point.

(COMMENT)

The key here is how "YOU" define "Palestine." But certainly, prior to the Mandate termination, the entirety of the territory was a "Legal Entity" known as the Government of Palestine.

After May 1948, there was within the UN Trusteeship territory, the new sovereign State of Israel. The entirety of the West Bank and Occupied Jerusalem went under a transformation, and in April 1950, that portion of the former Mandate Territory (transferred to the UN Trustee System), was absorbed by Jordan. And that remained so until July 1988, when the Jordanian relinquished the sovereignty and cut all political ties with the portion formally annexed by Jordan.

That same territory then made terra nullius (a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation”) by the unilateral withdrawal of all claims to the territory and thus, into the existing hands of the Israelis.

Without regard to any argument that may be initiated over the "terra nullius" status, there was no remaining territory over which the Arab Palestinian (a people without a formed government) when in NOV 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinians in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, (as of 1974) had not liberated any territory. In fact, the question of - "liberation" - and - "what needs to be liberated" - becomes a moot point with the mutually agreed upon creations of Areas "A" - "B" - and "C"... In fact, the only sure territory that could be reasonably argued as sovereign Arab Palestinian is Area "A"...

In December 2012, the UN A/RES/67/19 accorded "to Palestine "non-member observer State status" in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges, and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice."

Q: What does "non-member observer State status" actually mean, and how does it work with the current situation in the Middle East, west of the Jordan River?​

Different factions within the Arab Palestinian people's regime have different takes on where the A/RES/67/19 State of Palestine is actually located. "Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relation.” Maybe Area "A" only fits that description. The Israeli War for Independence (technically) extended into 1995 when the Jordanians entered into a peace arrangement.

One thing is reasonably certain. No right grants the Arab Palestinian the power to compel Israel to surrender any territory the Israelis now hold under the principle of territorial sovereignty.




Most Respectfully,
R

terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687, ‘The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953
I.C.J. Rep. 47; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 12. And see Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.),
265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State
may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as
prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 596

sovereignty ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . . [D]octrinal attempts at spiriting away sovereignty must remain meaningless. Actually, such efforts appear to minimize unduly the fundamental character of the principle of legal sovereignty within the realm of international law. The rules underlying this principle derive their importance. from the basic fact that “almost all international relations are bound up” with the independence of States. Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions
that concern international relation” [ Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 839]’: Schwarzenberger , International Law (3rd ed.), 114–115.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 563/654

 

[Hollie]

Point made.

What point have you made?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Point made.

What point have you made?

Your point so prove it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

BLUF: I doubt that Israel would spend a dime on this question.

Israel has had a long term propaganda campaign denying the existence of Palestine.

Point made.

Prove your point.

(COMMENT)

The key here is how "YOU" define "Palestine." But certainly, prior to the Mandate termination, the entirety of the territory was a "Legal Entity" known as the Government of Palestine.

After May 1948, there was within the UN Trusteeship territory, the new sovereign State of Israel. The entirety of the West Bank and Occupied Jerusalem went under a transformation, and in April 1950, that portion of the former Mandate Territory (transferred to the UN Trustee System), was absorbed by Jordan. And that remained so until July 1988, when the Jordanian relinquished the sovereignty and cut all political ties with the portion formally annexed by Jordan.

That same territory then made terra nullius (a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation”) by the unilateral withdrawal of all claims to the territory and thus, into the existing hands of the Israelis.

Without regard to any argument that may be initiated over the "terra nullius" status, there was no remaining territory over which the Arab Palestinian (a people without a formed government) when in NOV 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinians in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, (as of 1974) had not liberated any territory. In fact, the question of - "liberation" - and - "what needs to be liberated" - becomes a moot point with the mutually agreed upon creations of Areas "A" - "B" - and "C"... In fact, the only sure territory that could be reasonably argued as sovereign Arab Palestinian is Area "A"...

In December 2012, the UN A/RES/67/19 accorded "to Palestine "non-member observer State status" in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges, and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice."

Q: What does "non-member observer State status" actually mean, and how does it work with the current situation in the Middle East, west of the Jordan River?​

Different factions within the Arab Palestinian people's regime have different takes on where the A/RES/67/19 State of Palestine is actually located. "Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relation.” Maybe Area "A" only fits that description. The Israeli War for Independence (technically) extended into 1995 when the Jordanians entered into a peace arrangement.

One thing is reasonably certain. No right grants the Arab Palestinian the power to compel Israel to surrender any territory the Israelis now hold under the principle of territorial sovereignty.




Most Respectfully,
R

terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687, ‘The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953
I.C.J. Rep. 47; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 12. And see Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.),
265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State
may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as
prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 596

sovereignty ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . . [D]octrinal attempts at spiriting away sovereignty must remain meaningless. Actually, such efforts appear to minimize unduly the fundamental character of the principle of legal sovereignty within the realm of international law. The rules underlying this principle derive their importance. from the basic fact that “almost all international relations are bound up” with the independence of States. Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions
that concern international relation” [ Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 839]’: Schwarzenberger , International Law (3rd ed.), 114–115.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 563/654

Holy verbosity, Batman!

The key here is how "YOU" define "Palestine."

To the Palestinians Palestine is Palestine. Occupations are periods of history that do not change the original fact. The opinion of foreigners do not change anything.

 

[toastman]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

BLUF: You just keep us going in circles.

Do you mean when y'all starting dancing around the issue?

(COMMENT)

State your question (the Issue you say we are dancing around) clearly. Distinctively and Specifically!


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has had a long term propaganda campaign denying the existence of Palestine.

Point made.

Prove your point.

Why don’t you answer Rocco’s question and tell us what issue you claim we are dancing around ? Are you afraid that you are going to lose the argument for the umpteenth time ??

 

[toastman]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore,

BLUF: I doubt that Israel would spend a dime on this question.

Israel has had a long term propaganda campaign denying the existence of Palestine.

Point made.

Prove your point.

(COMMENT)

The key here is how "YOU" define "Palestine." But certainly, prior to the Mandate termination, the entirety of the territory was a "Legal Entity" known as the Government of Palestine.

After May 1948, there was within the UN Trusteeship territory, the new sovereign State of Israel. The entirety of the West Bank and Occupied Jerusalem went under a transformation, and in April 1950, that portion of the former Mandate Territory (transferred to the UN Trustee System), was absorbed by Jordan. And that remained so until July 1988, when the Jordanian relinquished the sovereignty and cut all political ties with the portion formally annexed by Jordan.

That same territory then made terra nullius (a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation”) by the unilateral withdrawal of all claims to the territory and thus, into the existing hands of the Israelis.

Without regard to any argument that may be initiated over the "terra nullius" status, there was no remaining territory over which the Arab Palestinian (a people without a formed government) when in NOV 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinians in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, (as of 1974) had not liberated any territory. In fact, the question of - "liberation" - and - "what needs to be liberated" - becomes a moot point with the mutually agreed upon creations of Areas "A" - "B" - and "C"... In fact, the only sure territory that could be reasonably argued as sovereign Arab Palestinian is Area "A"...

In December 2012, the UN A/RES/67/19 accorded "to Palestine "non-member observer State status" in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges, and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice."

Q: What does "non-member observer State status" actually mean, and how does it work with the current situation in the Middle East, west of the Jordan River?​

Different factions within the Arab Palestinian people's regime have different takes on where the A/RES/67/19 State of Palestine is actually located. "Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relation.” Maybe Area "A" only fits that description. The Israeli War for Independence (technically) extended into 1995 when the Jordanians entered into a peace arrangement.

One thing is reasonably certain. No right grants the Arab Palestinian the power to compel Israel to surrender any territory the Israelis now hold under the principle of territorial sovereignty.




Most Respectfully,
R

terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687, ‘The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953
I.C.J. Rep. 47; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 12. And see Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.),
265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State
may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as
prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 596

sovereignty ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . . [D]octrinal attempts at spiriting away sovereignty must remain meaningless. Actually, such efforts appear to minimize unduly the fundamental character of the principle of legal sovereignty within the realm of international law. The rules underlying this principle derive their importance. from the basic fact that “almost all international relations are bound up” with the independence of States. Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions
that concern international relation” [ Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 839]’: Schwarzenberger , International Law (3rd ed.), 114–115.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 563/654

Holy verbosity, Batman!

The key here is how "YOU" define "Palestine."

To the Palestinians Palestine is Palestine. Occupations are periods of history that do not change the original fact. The opinion of foreigners do not change anything.

Cool, but no of this changes he fact that Israel is a country that has international borders, and Palestine isn’t. None of your propaganda and lies will EVER change that.
It’s not my fault you can’t accept the truth .

 

[P F Tinmore]

terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid “occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation”

Occupation is the method that Israel claims it has acquired territory. None of the other method fit.

When territory is peacefully controlled for a period of time that territory can be claimed. Israel's claim to territory has never been peaceful. It has always been contested by the native population.

Israel constantly whines about so called terrorist attacks as the natives refuse to cede their territory to Israel.

All "peace offers" to the Palestinians have required them to surrender territory to Israel. So far no such treaty has ever been signed.