P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,776
- 4,414
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #10,541
Friends of Sabeel: Leila Al Marayati
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(FIRST COMMENT)I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.
An Interview in which Lord Caradon said:I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.
Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.
If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.
I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."
(FIRST COMMENT)I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.
An Interview in which Lord Caradon said:I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.
Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.
→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.
(SECOND COMMENT)
Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.
(THIRD COMMENT)
The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.
(FOURTH COMMENT)
The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.
I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."
(FIRST COMMENT)I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.
An Interview in which Lord Caradon said:I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.
Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.
→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.
(SECOND COMMENT)
Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.
(THIRD COMMENT)
The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.
(FOURTH COMMENT)
The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant. The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.
Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.
(COMMENT)If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.
(COMMENT)The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.
(COMMENT)You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant.
(COMMENT)Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Sadly, that is an entirely FALSE assumption. Just ask the HM King of Saudi Arabia who holds the rights of the people?
(COMMENT)If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.
POINT #1
This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. This is a concept only applies to the internal and domestic states.
"For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"
IF you cannot read and understand the law on this one issue, or reject it entirely,
THEN there is not much to talk about.
But there was no “act of aggression” between the Jewish population attempting to establish a state, and the Arab Palestinians which were attempting to stop the self-determination effort.
And remember, the Arab Palestinians rejected the notion of participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
(COMMENT)The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.
The political and territorial sovereignty of a "state" is an essential quality and character of being a "state."
Oddly enough, within the Arab League, there are two "absolute" monarchy: Saudi Arabia and Oman.
Until 1992, the King of Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarch. In 1992 the King gave the people its constitution; functional under sharia. However, HM the King retains the position as head of state and authority over all levels of government, including what we call executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
The Sultan of Oman has supreme and absolute authority.
(COMMENT)You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant.
POINT #2A
I did not say that at all (it was OK to steal their stuff). We are talking about different things here on a different level.
The establishment of "a state" is something entirely different than "their stuff." The definition of a state is entirely different than "their stuff."
POINT #2B
Your attempt to ridicule the law in this fashion by trying to use this non-existant "talking point" tag does not work. No matter what the source of the truth, it remains a "truth."
(COMMENT)Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.
POINT #3A
This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.
POINT #3B
If anything you can say that the Arab states of Jordan and Egypt established the precident of territorial conquest. They took the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And that was only resolved in 1994 and 1976. respectively.
Most Respectfully,
R
If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.
I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."
(FIRST COMMENT)I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.
An Interview in which Lord Caradon said:I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.
Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.
→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.
(SECOND COMMENT)
Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.
(THIRD COMMENT)
The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.
(FOURTH COMMENT)
The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant. The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.
Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Sadly, that is an entirely FALSE assumption. Just ask the HM King of Saudi Arabia who holds the rights of the people?
(COMMENT)If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.
POINT #1
This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. This is a concept only applies to the internal and domestic states.
"For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"
IF you cannot read and understand the law on this one issue, or reject it entirely,
THEN there is not much to talk about.
But there was no “act of aggression” between the Jewish population attempting to establish a state, and the Arab Palestinians which were attempting to stop the self-determination effort.
And remember, the Arab Palestinians rejected the notion of participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
(COMMENT)The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.
The political and territorial sovereignty of a "state" is an essential quality and character of being a "state."
Oddly enough, within the Arab League, there are two "absolute" monarchy: Saudi Arabia and Oman.
Until 1992, the King of Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarch. In 1992 the King gave the people its constitution; functional under sharia. However, HM the King retains the position as head of state and authority over all levels of government, including what we call executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
The Sultan of Oman has supreme and absolute authority.
(COMMENT)You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant.
POINT #2A
I did not say that at all (it was OK to steal their stuff). We are talking about different things here on a different level.
The establishment of "a state" is something entirely different than "their stuff." The definition of a state is entirely different than "their stuff."
POINT #2B
Your attempt to ridicule the law in this fashion by trying to use this non-existant "talking point" tag does not work. No matter what the source of the truth, it remains a "truth."
(COMMENT)Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.
POINT #3A
This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.
POINT #3B
If anything you can say that the Arab states of Jordan and Egypt established the precident of territorial conquest. They took the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And that was only resolved in 1994 and 1976. respectively.
Most Respectfully,
R
Ridiculous. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to take over Palestine for themselves and create a Jewish state. They prepared all through the Mandate for this take over. When the opportunity arose, Israel rolled its military over Palestine attacking and removing the civilians from their homes. It was a piece of cake until the Arab armies entered Palestine.Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.
Ridiculous. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to take over Palestine for themselves and create a Jewish state. They prepared all through the Mandate for this take over. When the opportunity arose, Israel rolled its military over Palestine attacking and removing the civilians from their homes. It was a piece of cake until the Arab armies entered Palestine.[/QUOTE]Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.
(COMMENT)RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh come on now.
Ridiculous. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to take over Palestine for themselves and create a Jewish state. They prepared all through the Mandate for this take over. When the opportunity arose, Israel rolled its military over Palestine attacking and removing the civilians from their homes. It was a piece of cake until the Arab armies entered Palestine.Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.
(REFERENCE)OK, so? The allied powers did not acquire sovereignty over the territory.In 1918, when Lord Somerset accepted the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, onboard the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, it was then that the Allied Powers assumed the rights and title of several territories, including the territory.
ARTICLE I6 • Treaty of Lausanne said:Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
What!
(REFERENCE)OK, so? The allied powers did not acquire sovereignty over the territory.In 1918, when Lord Somerset accepted the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, onboard the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, it was then that the Allied Powers assumed the rights and title of several territories, including the territory.
I think I said this already in a recent posting.ARTICLE I6 • Treaty of Lausanne said:Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
(COMMENT • APOLOGY)
You are 100% correct. The Allied Powers only received:
• all rights and title
• over or respecting the territories
• the future of these territories
• being settled or to be settled by the parties
The reason they did not use the word "sovereignty" because the responsibility was spread across all the Allied Powers that were party to the Treaty. The meaning of "sovereignty" precludes such an arrangement (you are either sovereign or not). Sort of the difference between "joint custody and "sole custody."
You are right, there was no "free parking" listed.
Needless to say, the Arab Palestinian inhabitance were not awarded any territory.
Most Respectfully,
R
Do you have a link for that?Needless to say, the Arab Palestinian inhabitance were not awarded any territory.