Palestine Today

[Shusha]

Israel ... (has) no valid claim to the land.

Defend this claim. You will have to outline how you think claims to sovereignty become valid and then show that the Jewish claim to some territory does not meet that criteria.

 

[Shusha]

Km
Honestly, I dont think Israel ever seriously meant to cede control of Area C to the Palestinians at any time. Do you?

It has historically been Israel's intent to cede sovereign territory to the Arab Palestinians for the development of their State. I believe the Oslo Accords are evidence enough of that intent. As was the lengthy settlement freeze following Oslo. As was the Olmert plan, which included offering parts of Jerusalem, including the Old City and Jewish Holy Places.

The only question has been, and is, how much territory. All of Area C? Probably not. (Hence the language in Oslo that borders were to be determined in the final status agreement). I think the plan for Area C WAS to annex those places with strong Israeli presence in trade for areas with strong Arab presence. I think the plan WAS to cede parts of Jerusalem. And I think the plan WAS to maintain security control over the Jordan valley, at least temporarily.

But I don't think that is the plan any more.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, et al,

Well, I think that is partly accurate.

Honestly, I dont think Israel ever seriously meant to cede control of Area C to the Palestinians at any time. Do you?

(COMMENT)

In 1967, no one had any idea that there would be such a thing as Areas "A" - "B" - "C." No one knew that Jordan would eventually abandon an alliance with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Or that the PLO would be deeply involved in the events of Black September.

2. From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders. Determination of territory to be retained should be based on accepted tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles, elimination of enemy-held salients, and provision of defense indepth for important facilities and installations.
SOURCE: JCSM-373-67

The necessity for dividing the West Bank into three distinct administrative areas was (for all practical purposes) impossible to foresee a quarter century beforehand. While some key terrain was bound to be kept, the immensity of Area "C" could not have been predicted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interview with you activists: Leila Aruri and Dalia Fuleihan

 

[Hollie]

Interview with Islamic terrorists - post acts of Islamic terrorism

 

[ding]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, et al,

Let's try this just: One - More - Time!
Just a refresher here. See if you can follow this...

View attachment 237448
​

So basically what you are saying is that if you steal something and can hold onto long enough because the officials look the other way you can legally own it?

(KEY FACTORS)

In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem...

• Treaty of Alliance between HM in respect of the UK and HH the Amir of Trans-Jordan, 22 March 1946 •

View attachment 237451
​

• Unification of the Two Banks

◈ On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: History Website: kinghussein.gov → Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
​

• Disengagement from the West Bank •

◈ On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.
​

• Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933 •

◈ ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

(COMMENT)

Prior to the Annexation of the West Bank by Jordanian parliament in which of the MPs were Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank (this would be by the Right of independence and Sovereignty). the Government of Palestine (the UK) maintained effective control by Mandate. In 1950 the King of Jordan incorporated the West Bank into the greater Sovereignty of Jordan. In 1967, the State of Israel, in pursuit of retreating Jordanian military forces, assume effective control of the West Bank. This made the West Bank Jordanian territory under Israeli occupation. On 31 July 1988, The Kingdom of Jordan cut all administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, leaving the West Bank in the hands of Israel without protest or other contest by the original sovereign → HM King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Let me say this again.

On 31 July 1988, The Kingdom of Jordan cut all administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, leaving the West Bank in the hands of Israel without protest or other contest by the original sovereign → HM King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
​

This nonsense you spout: "because the officials look the other way" is absolutely incorrect and unsubstantiated in any fashion. The King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan did not look the other way, he even made a radio address to the citizens of his nation and the world at large.

If the Arab Palestinians had any control at all in the West Bank or Jerusalem, it is only because the Israelis allow it. Currently, because of the very poor diplomacy on the part of the Arab Palestinians, the only territory the Arab Palestinians have full civil and security control is in Area "A" through the Palestinian Authority; and the Gaza Strip because of the unilateral withdraw by the Israelis.

Any questions?

Most Respectfully,
R

Everything which proceeds from bad fruit is bad. If the initial claim is bad fruit everything which proceeds from it is bad too. No matter how lipstick or fancy dresses one puts on a pig, at the end of the day it is still a pig.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, et al,

This is not an applicable case for the concept of the "Fruit of the PosionousTree."

Everything which proceeds from bad fruit is bad. If the initial claim is bad fruit everything which proceeds from it is bad too. No matter how lipstick or fancy dresses one puts on a pig, at the end of the day it is still a pig.

(COMMENT)

The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" is a phrase coined to describe tainted or compromised evidence. It is not applicable to either national or international decision-making processes.

The analogous criticism in the various decision-making processes is "competency" (an ability to perform) and "capacity," (fundamental action that supports of nullifies the element of intent).

(PROCESS)

Whether or not the "pig" went to the Royal Fancy Dress Ball is NOT the issue. The decision to go leads to the consequence of the action. IF the prince is deeply affected (holding a strong attraction) for the "pig" THEN the decision however good or bad the "lipstick" had the desired cosmetic effect. You cannot go to Divorce Court years later on the grounds that the princess is a "pig."

(EXCEPTION)

Well, you might get away with it IF the "pig" was wearing a niqab (leaves only the eyes uncovered) or especially a burka (everything covered). You might get a little T 'n' A (that would be - toes and ankles) but that would be all. THEN that might be used as an extenuating circumstance.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]