Oslo is not a legal agreement

[Shusha]

"Oslo is not a legal agreement. It goes against the law of treaties and the rules of belligerent occupation."

The above statement was claimed on another thread.

The context is that since there is an existing treaty between the PA and Israel, there is no occupation. An occupation, by definition, is military control of another sovereign's territory, without the permission of the offended party. A treaty, by definition, is a mutual agreement over the conditions which apply in the territory. Thus the existence of a treaty, of itself, ends the occupation.

Of course, either party can be in violation of a treaty. BUT that was not the claim above. The claim above is that the treat is not valid. How so?

 

[aris2chat]

Palestinian Breach Means Oslo Accords No Longer Valid, Israeli Think ...
Palestinian Breach Means Oslo Accords No Longer Valid, Israeli Think-Tank Declares...
Jan 5, 2015 - Palestinian actions mean Israel is no longer bound by the Oslo... Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and ...
Palestinian diplomat lambasts Oslo Accords' legacy
www.browndailyherald.com/2013/.../palestinian-diplomat-lambasts-oslo-accords-lega...
Sep 26, 2013 - “(Palestinians are) the ones who launched the peace process,” Ashrawi said. A lifelong diplomat and human rights activist who claimed to have ...
Mahmoud Abbas on Oslo Accords: Palestinians not bound - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/world/palestinian-president-abbas-oslo.../index.html
Sep 30, 2015 - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Israel is not committing to ... "The fact that he -- time and again -- has refused to do so is the best ...

 

[Shusha]

As a secondary topic to this thread, I would like to point out, once again, that it is impossible for Israel to end the conflict. Absolutely impossible.

The reason is that every act Israel performs toward peace is somehow considered invalid. Complete withdrawal from territory doesn't end occupation, but continues it and brings up new accusations. Giving up Jewish rights to Holy Places in order to have peace leads to erasure of Jewish history and prevention of Jewish religious practice. Providing autonomy and self-government somehow becomes apartheid.

And now, treaties are illegal and invalid.

 

[Shusha]

Palestinian Breach Means Oslo Accords No Longer Valid, Israeli Think ...
Palestinian Breach Means Oslo Accords No Longer Valid, Israeli Think-Tank Declares...
Jan 5, 2015 - Palestinian actions mean Israel is no longer bound by the Oslo... Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and ...
Palestinian diplomat lambasts Oslo Accords' legacy
www.browndailyherald.com/2013/.../palestinian-diplomat-lambasts-oslo-accords-lega...
Sep 26, 2013 - “(Palestinians are) the ones who launched the peace process,” Ashrawi said. A lifelong diplomat and human rights activist who claimed to have ...
Mahmoud Abbas on Oslo Accords: Palestinians not bound - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/world/palestinian-president-abbas-oslo.../index.html
Sep 30, 2015 - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Israel is not committing to ... "The fact that he -- time and again -- has refused to do so is the best ...

Sure. But those discuss breaches of the agreement, not the invalidity of the agreement in the first place. Which is what, I think, the original poster is claiming.

 

[aris2chat]

CAMERA: CAMERA Spotlights Palestinian Repudiation of Oslo
www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=58&x_article=3268
Mar 1, 2016 - Once again, the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejects the peace ... As historian Efraim Karsh has noted, Oslo threw the moribund PLO a lifeline.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Oslo is not a legal agreement. It goes against the law of treaties and the rules of belligerent occupation."

The above statement was claimed on another thread.

The context is that since there is an existing treaty between the PA and Israel, there is no occupation. An occupation, by definition, is military control of another sovereign's territory, without the permission of the offended party. A treaty, by definition, is a mutual agreement over the conditions which apply in the territory. Thus the existence of a treaty, of itself, ends the occupation.

Of course, either party can be in violation of a treaty. BUT that was not the claim above. The claim above is that the treat is not valid. How so?

BUT that was not the claim above. The claim above is that the treat is not valid. How so?

All people have a standard list of inalienable rights. These rights are non negotiable and nobody has the authority to sign away the rights of others.

Any treaty or agreement that calls for or allows the violation of inalienable rights is not valid.

 

[Shusha]

Please provide standard list of inalienable rights. Quote source.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please provide standard list of inalienable rights. Quote source.

Oh jeese, Why do you post here when you know so little?

 

[Shusha]

I'm just trying to walk you through your own argument. You are absolutely correct that a government can't make a treaty, which, for example, calls for the genocide of its people. The right to life is an inalienable human right.

However, there is nothing in the Oslo Accords which violates any of the human rights you could find in any source.

So, what is it that you think is in the Oslo Accords which violates a right. Quote source in Oslo and in any other document you want for the rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm just trying to walk you through your own argument. You are absolutely correct that a government can't make a treaty, which, for example, calls for the genocide of its people. The right to life is an inalienable human right.

However, there is nothing in the Oslo Accords which violates any of the human rights you could find in any source.

So, what is it that you think is in the Oslo Accords which violates a right. Quote source in Oslo and in any other document you want for the rights.

The basic rights:

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

The basic premise of Oslo is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.

 

[Shusha]

Where does Oslo deny any of those rights to Palestinians?

Oslo provides for self-determination, without external interference. It provides for independence. It grants sovereignty. It provides for territorial integrity both now and in a future agreement.

Where is this denial of rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where does Oslo deny any of those rights to Palestinians?

Oslo provides for self-determination, without external interference. It provides for independence. It grants sovereignty. It provides for territorial integrity both now and in a future agreement.

Where is this denial of rights?

Israel controls travel, trade, and tourism. Israel controls water. Israel controls economic development. Israel controls where people can live and visit. Israel denies access to or destroys necessities of life like food water and shelter.

And more.

 

[Shusha]

Please be clear. We are not discussing violations of the Oslo Accords. We are discussing their validity.

So show me where the Oslo Accords prevent Palestinian from holding the four rights you outlined in your post.

Where does Oslo prevent Palestinian self-determination? Where does it prevent Palestinian independence? Where does it legislate away Palestinian sovereignty?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please be clear. We are not discussing violations of the Oslo Accords. We are discussing their validity.

So show me where the Oslo Accords prevent Palestinian from holding the four rights you outlined in your post.

Where does Oslo prevent Palestinian self-determination? Where does it prevent Palestinian independence? Where does it legislate away Palestinian sovereignty?

Oslo "legalizes" the occupation and all of the ensuing violations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please be clear. We are not discussing violations of the Oslo Accords. We are discussing their validity.

So show me where the Oslo Accords prevent Palestinian from holding the four rights you outlined in your post.

Where does Oslo prevent Palestinian self-determination? Where does it prevent Palestinian independence? Where does it legislate away Palestinian sovereignty?

Where do the Palestinians have self determination without external interference?

Nowhere.

Where do the Palestinians have independence and sovereignty?

Nowhere.

Where do the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity?

Nowhere.

Oslo OKs all of this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Part of the Oslo agreement.

 

[Humanity]

As a secondary topic to this thread, I would like to point out, once again, that it is impossible for Israel to end the conflict. Absolutely impossible.

The reason is that every act Israel performs toward peace is somehow considered invalid. Complete withdrawal from territory doesn't end occupation, but continues it and brings up new accusations. Giving up Jewish rights to Holy Places in order to have peace leads to erasure of Jewish history and prevention of Jewish religious practice. Providing autonomy and self-government somehow becomes apartheid.

And now, treaties are illegal and invalid.

I for one would certainly not criticize Israel withdrawing from territory!

 

[Lipush]

F'course you won't. Jews being expelled from their homes is never a bad idea, huh? But only suggesting that to an Arab and the cries will cross countries.

 

[Hollie]

Please be clear. We are not discussing violations of the Oslo Accords. We are discussing their validity.

So show me where the Oslo Accords prevent Palestinian from holding the four rights you outlined in your post.

Where does Oslo prevent Palestinian self-determination? Where does it prevent Palestinian independence? Where does it legislate away Palestinian sovereignty?

Where do the Palestinians have self determination without external interference?

Nowhere.

Where do the Palestinians have independence and sovereignty?

Nowhere.

Where do the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity?

Nowhere.

Oslo OKs all of this.

Where do islamic terrorists have a right to further the goals of their "Charter"?


Nowhere.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please be clear. We are not discussing violations of the Oslo Accords. We are discussing their validity.

So show me where the Oslo Accords prevent Palestinian from holding the four rights you outlined in your post.

Where does Oslo prevent Palestinian self-determination? Where does it prevent Palestinian independence? Where does it legislate away Palestinian sovereignty?

Where do the Palestinians have self determination without external interference?

Nowhere.

Where do the Palestinians have independence and sovereignty?

Nowhere.

Where do the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity?

Nowhere.

Oslo OKs all of this.

Where do islamic terrorists have a right to further the goals of their "Charter"?


Nowhere.

None of that is in the Isra...er...uhh...the Hamas charter.

You are just deflecting.