Justice for the Palestinians

[Shusha]

Indeed, the Palestinians are working on that now. Israel is fighting against it.

Defend this statement. What exactly are the Palestinians doing to end the conflict and move forward? For that matter, what are you, personally, doing to change the dialogue to forward-thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than harping on stolen cars?

 

[anotherlife]

Your term judeo communist of course as like zionazi it is an oxymoron and these are used by islamomorons because they don't understand what an oxymoron is.
Force of law depending on where you live, in Europe the racism laws are very strict and if a European warrant was issued you could face prison for your crime. In the US you could be shot by a disgruntled person who takes offence at your words.

You can criticize all you want as long as you don't use the saw to hide your racism, whish is what you are doing. You are not criticizing you are being full on racist and hiding behind Voltaire. Something that all Jew haters do to cover for their racism

The word Judeo communist is developed from the word Islamo fascist, which you don't criticize, because you agree with it. I am not a racist, and I am not a Jew hater. People come to this forum to freely discuss ideas. I don't understand why you support bloodthirsty governments as much as your post proves here. In your imagination, you put me into prison and shoot me, for not agreeing with you. And you are wondering why people don't agree with you? I have an idea for you. If you think that my responses offend you, then reply with that, I can stop responding to you, also you can use the report button to ask the mods to delete my posts, plus you can put me on your ignore list too. Or are you trying to censor logic globally?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”
​

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?​

Here again, let's go back to Montevideo.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”

Link?

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?​

Here again, let's go back to Montevideo.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”

Link?

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

Once again, your attempt at cut and paste argument fails.

Once again, you are attempting to retroactively apply theories and principles that did not apply to the geographic area of this mythical "Pal'istan" you have invented.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

already walked out of talks

abbas might be trying to make deal with Israel w/o gaza

Palestinian election set for Oct.

 

[aris2chat]

$5 billion being invested in building an island for a runway and shipping harbor off Gaza.

If east and west can't agree the construction might not go through

 

[aris2chat]

Lies and disinformation will not help the Palestinians, nor inciting violence

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

​

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”
​

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

already walked out of talks

abbas might be trying to make deal with Israel w/o gaza

Palestinian election set for Oct.

View attachment 78948

Where are the exports?

Until Gaza is allowed to farm, fish, manufacture, and export they will depend on aid.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

And this led to that arab muslims in Jewish Palestine refusing to follow the law and move to the arab Palestine side of the Jordan. The British assisted the arab Palestinians to independence in Trans Jordan, then tried to stop the Jews from gaining their independence in Jewish Palestine by giving away 30% of their land to illegal immigrants . So yes due to arab muslim inadequacies, illiteracy and violent manner Palestine is a complete failure. And morons siding against international law are continuing to make it a failure. The same morons that twist the truth, or make up new truths to deny the Jews their rights to be treated the same as the arab muslim palestinians

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

And this led to that arab muslims in Jewish Palestine refusing to follow the law and move to the arab Palestine side of the Jordan. The British assisted the arab Palestinians to independence in Trans Jordan, then tried to stop the Jews from gaining their independence in Jewish Palestine by giving away 30% of their land to illegal immigrants . So yes due to arab muslim inadequacies, illiteracy and violent manner Palestine is a complete failure. And morons siding against international law are continuing to make it a failure. The same morons that twist the truth, or make up new truths to deny the Jews their rights to be treated the same as the arab muslim palestinians

Do you have links to all that crap?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

I don't get this continuous debating over the past. We should work for justice for both the Israelis and Palestinians NOW.

Indeed, the Palestinians are working on that now. Israel is fighting against it.

What justice are the arab muslim terrorists working on that is not also applicable to the Jews ? Don't forget the arab muslims have no more rights than any Jew living in the area. Where are your words of JUSTICE for the Jewish people who have more right to live there than the arab muslims do when the evidence is in.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

​

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”
​

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

already walked out of talks

abbas might be trying to make deal with Israel w/o gaza

Palestinian election set for Oct.

View attachment 78948

Where are the exports?

Until Gaza is allowed to farm, fish, manufacture, and export they will depend on aid.

Right were the arab muslims left them when Israel left gaza, rotting waiting for the transport to take them to other countries. Because Israel did that when the farms and factories were Jewish owned the arab muslims thought they would pay for the arab goods to be sold on the world stage and became upset when told they had to make their own arrangements. Now the only goods made in gaza are explosives and weapons, and no one wants poor quality explosives and weapons. Here you go again demanding that the world does the work for the arab muslims because they don't have the brains of brawn to do it themselves, when will you stop handing them their rights on a plate only to see them thrown back in your face when they screw them up again

 

[aris2chat]

 

[aris2chat]

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty. Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

And this led to that arab muslims in Jewish Palestine refusing to follow the law and move to the arab Palestine side of the Jordan. The British assisted the arab Palestinians to independence in Trans Jordan, then tried to stop the Jews from gaining their independence in Jewish Palestine by giving away 30% of their land to illegal immigrants . So yes due to arab muslim inadequacies, illiteracy and violent manner Palestine is a complete failure. And morons siding against international law are continuing to make it a failure. The same morons that twist the truth, or make up new truths to deny the Jews their rights to be treated the same as the arab muslim palestinians

Do you have links to all that crap?

Yes and I have posted them countless times in the past, and still you keep asking as if they will change suddenly. But look at the number of Jews murdered by the British when they sent them to the death camps pf Cyprus after WW2 rather than let them land in Palestine. Then look at the LoN treaties and mandate of Palestine that partitioned Palestine into Jewish and arab muslim parts with strict rules on who could live on each part. Then idiots like you twist words to deny the Jews the same rights they demand for the arab muslims, by using such phrases as "indigenous Jews" who are all dead now going on the criteria used.

 

[Phoenall]

Your term judeo communist of course as like zionazi it is an oxymoron and these are used by islamomorons because they don't understand what an oxymoron is.
Force of law depending on where you live, in Europe the racism laws are very strict and if a European warrant was issued you could face prison for your crime. In the US you could be shot by a disgruntled person who takes offence at your words.

You can criticize all you want as long as you don't use the saw to hide your racism, whish is what you are doing. You are not criticizing you are being full on racist and hiding behind Voltaire. Something that all Jew haters do to cover for their racism

The word Judeo communist is developed from the word Islamo fascist, which you don't criticize, because you agree with it. I am not a racist, and I am not a Jew hater. People come to this forum to freely discuss ideas. I don't understand why you support bloodthirsty governments as much as your post proves here. In your imagination, you put me into prison and shoot me, for not agreeing with you. And you are wondering why people don't agree with you? I have an idea for you. If you think that my responses offend you, then reply with that, I can stop responding to you, also you can use the report button to ask the mods to delete my posts, plus you can put me on your ignore list too. Or are you trying to censor logic globally?

Because it is based on the truth as shown by the Islamic fascism around the world. You come across as racist when you use the words of Valtaire, which are used by Jew haters the world over to hide their racism. Here you go again with your racism claiming that I support blood thirsty governments, what blood thirsty governments are they as Israel is proven not to be one. AWWWWW DIDDUMS is all upset because he/she has been outed as a complete idiot and uncaring racist monster.

 

[P F Tinmore]

View attachment 78975

Does this mean that the actual exports are a little piddle of what was agreed?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

According to the theory of popular sovereignty (the dominant theory of contemporary international law) the people are the sovereigns inside a defined territory. Governments and states are only sovereign as extensions of popular sovereignty. The Palestinians, being the legal inhabitants and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine, are the sovereigns of that territory.

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?​

Here again, let's go back to Montevideo.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”

Link?

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

So why didn't the arab muslims claim independence in 1920 when they first had that chance ? My bad they did and it was called trans Jordan. It was the Jews that were stopped from claiming independence and free determination by the arab muslims until 1948 when the British left before facing charges of crimes against humanity and genocide.

WRONG as it was defined in 1923 by the LoN

See here


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:11


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.




Why do you leave out the " existence as a person under international law." is it because the international laws of the time disagree with your interpretation of the rights allowed at that time. And also because it supports Israel position and not the arab muslims, as shown by your heavy manipulation of the content of your source evidence.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al

Sometimes you fall into trap.

First, I do not think I said the territory to which the Mandate applied was British Sovereign Territory. I said it was under the effective control of the Allied Powers.

• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).

• Palestine was never a sovereign part of British territory. Britain merely held Palestine in trust while assisting the Palestinians to independence.

(COMMENT)

I don’t see the word “sovereign” at all. The important points here are clearly stated:

• No Arab Palestinian or Arab League entities hade any title rights or control to the territories of the Mandate for Palestine; not in the beginning, not during the term of the Mandate, and not afterwards until the Jordanian annexation under the Arab Palestinian right to self determination; the Egyptian Military Governorship (both ending in transitioned between 1967 and 1988), and (possibly) 1988.​

​

Effective control is descriptive of occupation not sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The terminology “effective control” is NOT unique to the creation of an Occupation. This principle of “effective control” can also be used to underscores the notion that a sovereign state has the authority to act independently over its own territory to the exclusion of other states. This is directly connected to the Montevideo Convention in the expression “defined territory” as one of the key components to a “state.”

The question you have to ask yourself on the issue of whether the Palestinians actually have a “state” is:

• Does the present day Government of Palestine have the ability to intentional display power and authority over the territory it claims to govern, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis?

• The Arab Palestinians, especially when they claim they have been denied their “inalienable rights,” means they have lost their “totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law; which is “sovereignty.”
​

These are key elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty.

If the answer to that question is “NO,” as you allude to or imply --- when you say complain that the Mandatory and then the emergence of Israeli, the annexation of the West Bank and the Military Governance over Gaza, prevented the Arab Palestinian from development ---- THEN unless we change the treaties that were signed in 1648 in Westphalia at the end of the 30 Year War, and the and the body judicial law since that time.

Oddly enough, the most convincing evidence that the Arab Palestinians have some claim the territories occupied since 1967, comes from Israel itself; and not anything the Arab Palestinians did to establish a working government. Israel, as the Regional Power --- does NOT disputed the Arab Palestinians claim to sovereignty over much of the territories occupied since 1967. Israel, with minor exceptions,

After 30 years of blocking independence, Britain left Palestine a complete failure.

(COMMENT)

This again, implies (30 years of blocking independence) a lack of an ability to exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The Arab Palestinians cannot even hammer-out a framework by which the “Unity Government” works and who, if any entity, succeeded the PLO as the sole representative.


Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore,

Your analogy is just plain wrong.

How much "control" of your car do you have when a crook is driving it down the street?

Is it still your car?

Do you have the right to get it back?

You post pages of verbosity to smokescreen basic issues.

(COMMENT)

If your "CAR" was suppose to symbolize territory, then you are making an assumption that is not TRUE and making it UNSOUND.

• An argument is sound if, and only if, it:

1) is valid, and
2) has all true premises. (Is it still your car? NO! It never was your car.)
​

• An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion false.​

In your analogy, the crook is NOT driving it down the street in your car. The crook does not have control of your car. You never own the car. No one took control of YOUR car, because it wasn't yours to begin with in the scenario.

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, (the inference that you owned the car, and the crook took control of your car) where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious (based on a mistaken belief).

I suggest that you are unsatisfied with the arguments outcome, so you ignore the content supporting the argument and substitute an erroneous premise --- and --- then over simplify the argument to obfuscate the true nature of the argument.

The "CAR" (Palestine) was never your car and was never under your control. If a "crook" has control of the car, you have lost nothing. Someone has lost the (effective) control of the car (Palestine), but it was not you.

• Before the Great War, the undefined territories of Palestine were under the effective control of the Ottoman Empire (not Palestinians).
• After the Great War, the Allied Powers assume all title and rights to the undefined territories of the Mandate for Palestine was under the effective control of the Allied Powers (not the Palestinians).
• After the Israeli War of Independence, the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was effectively controlled by Israel and members of the Arab League (Jordan and Egypt)(but not the Palestinians).
• After the Six Day War, no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
• After the 1988 Declaration of Independence, the no part of the Allied Defined territory to which the former Mandate applied, was under the effective control of the Palestinians.
​

It is not clear what the diplomatic nature of the State of Palestine might be. With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Areas "A" and "B" of the West Bank, the argument for effective control is a case of where the Palestinians speak and act --- so as to make it appear that something is the case (true) when in fact it is not. We could call this a "Pretender State" or "Imitation State."

Then there is the question of the relationship between the Government of Gaza and the Government of the West Bank.

HAMAS announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended.

The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported. Jerusalem Post. 06.21.2016
​

AND

On June 15, Hamas and Fatah began a third round of talks in Qatar towards reconciliation towards a national unity government in the Palestinian Authority. Conventional wisdom places Fatah/the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the “moderate” camp, while Hamas is “extremist.” But interestingly, Hamas and Fatah/PA share jihadist tendencies. For ample support of this, one only needs to look at Fatah/PA’s messaging to its own people, in its own words.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/fatah_and_the_palestinian_authoritys_jihadist_tendencies.html#ixzz4CCwfA8Zv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

When you obfuscate the issue of effective control and competency, you miss major Issues that had an impact on "WHO" actually is in control, when!!!

Most Respectfully,
R

already walked out of talks

abbas might be trying to make deal with Israel w/o gaza

Palestinian election set for Oct.

View attachment 78948

Where are the exports?

Until Gaza is allowed to farm, fish, manufacture, and export they will depend on aid.

Then let them show they are able to do so and start farming, fishing and making goods. Not smuggling, planting bombs and firing illegal weapons. The aid they get is 20 times more than they could ever expect to get by working and trading, which is why they don't do and never will