Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ et al,

BLUF: • Annex 1, Charter of the League of Arab States 1945 •
Excerpt:
(1) Annex Regarding Palestine Since the termination of the last great war the rule of the Ottoman Empire over the Arab countries, among them Palestine, which bad become detached from that Empire, has come to an end. She has come to be autonomous, not subordinate to any other state. The Treaty of Lausanne proclaimed that her future was to be settled by the parties concerned. However, even though she was as yet unable to control her own affairs, the Covenant of the League (of Nations) in 1919 made provision for a regime based upon recognition of her independence. Her international existence and independence in the legal sense cannot, therefore, be questioned, any more than could the independence of the other Arab countries. Although the outward manifestations of this independence have remained obscured for reasons beyond her control, this should not be allowed to interfere with her participation in the work of the Council of the League. The states signatory to the Pact of the Arab League are therefore of the opinion that, considering the special circumstances of Palestine and until that country can effectively exercise its independence, the Council of the League should take charge of the selection of an Arab representative from Palestine to take part in its work.

So, where is that treaty between those two states?

Link?

(COMMENT)

As you can see from the BLUF, even the "ARAB LEAGUE" questions the nature of "Palestine." The members of the Arab League are bound together by Charter as if it were a Treaty. This is similar to the relationship between the members of the UN and the Charter.

The question is: "Can Palestine and until that country can effectively exercise its independence?" I think after seven decades, the answer is a categorical "NO."


Most Respectfully,
R

Although the outward manifestations of this independence have remained obscured for reasons beyond her control,

Indeed, military occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty" and the "Civil and Political Rights of the People" are two entirely different sets of concepts. And "Prescription" is yet, a third concept to be considered excluding "Terra Nullius." In the case of the abandonment of the West Bank and Jerusalem by the Jordanians, there was no Arab Palestinian government in hand and the effective control over those areas was Israeli.

(REALITY)

It is important that the state of control and operation over the territory under discussion be understood as they actually exist with the Region of Conflict (RoC). In general, that would include The West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. It is essential to understand the conditions as they actually are → and NOT some imaginary state of affairs.

Completely irrelevant to my post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, that is debatable. The term "occupation" is a relatively new term to be defined by international law. And more than have of the nations in Europe and the Middle East have changed politically or undergone sovereign changes since the Fall of Constantinople. Hell, by the conclusion of The Great War, four of the major Empires fell (German Empire, Ottoman Empire, Australia-Hungary Empire, and Imperial Russia).

You are just trying to confuse the issue.

 

[Shusha]

Those are say so borders. Those peace agreements were not brokered by the UN they were brokered by the US.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Golan is part of Israel. Israel has borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Why is that? Because we say so.

Oh dear. You DO realize that is how international law concerning borders between States works, right? We say so. We, the Parties involved, create a mutual agreement delineating borders between our two States. That is literally how it works. Mutual agreement is the entire basis of relations between States.

So it would be OK for Germany and Spain to agree to have a mutual border in the middle of France? That is an agreement between two states.

Why do you bother to post this sort of utter nonsense? Obviously, in that case, France would be one of the Parties involved. This isn't terribly difficult.

You have to ask yourself WHY 'Palestine' has not been a Party, until, arguably, sometime between 1988 and 1995.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There are certainly those instances when I don't think were have the same book - in the same language, let alone finding we are on the same page.

(REFERENCE)

(COMMENT)

Sometimes, I just fail to understand how you can ignore the obvious. But you have used this response of irrelevance so often, I am going to take each new one to task.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There are certainly those instances when I don't think were have the same book - in the same language, let alone finding we are on the same page.

View attachment 314371​

(REFERENCE)
View attachment 314375
(COMMENT)

Sometimes, I just fail to understand how you can ignore the obvious. But you have used this response of irrelevance so often, I am going to take each new one to task.


Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

(2) Prescription
A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

Sign in - Google Accounts

sites.google.com

Thanks for the link.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Those are say so borders. Those peace agreements were not brokered by the UN they were brokered by the US.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Golan is part of Israel. Israel has borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Why is that? Because we say so.

Oh dear. You DO realize that is how international law concerning borders between States works, right? We say so. We, the Parties involved, create a mutual agreement delineating borders between our two States. That is literally how it works. Mutual agreement is the entire basis of relations between States.

So it would be OK for Germany and Spain to agree to have a mutual border in the middle of France? That is an agreement between two states.

Why do you bother to post this sort of utter nonsense? Obviously, in that case, France would be one of the Parties involved. This isn't terribly difficult.

You have to ask yourself WHY 'Palestine' has not been a Party, until, arguably, sometime between 1988 and 1995.

Obviously, in that case, France would be one of the Parties involved.

Why?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How a Palestinian shoemaker started the West Bank’s only mask factory overnight

What started as an experiment days after the coronavirus outbreak in the West Bank is now a factory producing thousands of masks a day.

Two days after the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Bethlehem, Amjad Zaghir, a shoe factory owner from the Palestinian city of Hebron, realized the West Bank will soon run out of face masks. Less than three weeks later, he is now the only mask manufacturer there.

Zaghir’s factory, which he started overnight, now produces thousands of masks a day, and has made him a national hero for helping Palestinians protect themselves from the virus.

How a shoemaker started the West Bank's only mask factory overnight

What started as an experiment days after the coronavirus outbreak in the West Bank is now a factory producing thousands of masks a day.

www.972mag.com

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh man, you simply had a reading comprehension problem.

(2) Prescription
A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

Sign in - Google Accounts

sites.google.com

Thanks for the link.

(COMMENT)

The key phrase that you need to re-read and comprehend.

"This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription."​

The former sovereign was:

◈ The Jordanians​

​

◈ Before that: the Ottomans​

​

◈ Before that: Mamluk (Arab Slaves)​

​

◈ Before that: Crusaders​

Arab Palestinians had not maintained sovereignty over the disputed territories for more than a since the time of the crusaders (nearly a thousand years ago). No former sovereign, except the Jordanians, have expressed and objection. And even the Jordanians have a peace treaty over the territory with the Israelis.

I don't think the Israelis will use the concept of "prescription" as a basis for an explanation. What I think is that it is important to get the information out there, that this entire propaganda line on the matter of Acquisition is flawed.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh man, you simply had a reading comprehension problem.

(2) Prescription
A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

Sign in - Google Accounts

sites.google.com

Thanks for the link.

(COMMENT)

The key phrase that you need to re-read and comprehend.

"This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription."​

The former sovereign was:

◈ The Jordanians​

​

◈ Before that: the Ottomans​

​

◈ Before that: Mamluk (Arab Slaves)​

​

◈ Before that: Crusaders​

Arab Palestinians had not maintained sovereignty over the disputed territories for more than a since the time of the crusaders (nearly a thousand years ago). No former sovereign, except the Jordanians, have expressed and objection. And even the Jordanians have a peace treaty over the territory with the Israelis.

I don't think the Israelis will use the concept of "prescription" as a basis for an explanation. What I think is that it is important to get the information out there, that this entire propaganda line on the matter of Acquisition is flawed.


Most Respectfully,
R

Absent a treaty, conquest is the only option left.

BTW, the people are sovereign not governments or states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Looking Forward: The Work of Interfaith Peace-Builders

 

[P F Tinmore]

Demonstration in Ramallah After Israeli Attack on Humanitarian Flotilla to Gaza

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel/Palestine in The Age of Obama and The Tea Party: What Does the Future Hold?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Absent a treaty, conquest is the only option left.

(COMMENT)

This is simply not true. And I've sent the link many times that explain the various alternatives.

BTW, the people are sovereign not governments or states.

(COMMENT)

You are confusing the context in the meaning. BTW, many words have multiple meanings depending on the context and usage.

In a monarchy, the "sovereign" is essentially the King.

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 159​

State immunity is also known as sovereign immunity, reflecting its origins in the sanctity of​

kingship.​

​

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 170​

This follows Article 11 of the European Convention and the general trend of state practice. Under the UN Convention, the European Convention and the UK and US Acts, the tort exception applies even when the act was ostensibly performed in exercise of sovereign authority.​

​

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 108​

There could, however, be occasions when an overseas territory has concluded a treaty in its own name and without any authority from the parent state. Whether the territory’s lack of competence to conclude the treaty was manifest will depend on the circumstances, but a foreign ministry should be able to distinguish overseas territories from sovereign states.​

​

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 108​

The establishment of diplomatic relations and permanent diplomatic missions requires the consent of both states (Article 2). They must be sovereign states and must recognise each other as such. Recognition is usually soon followed by the establishment of diplomatic relations, and sometimes the establishment of relations constitutes the act of recognition.​

Alternative perspectives:

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • Page 563​

sovereignty • ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.​

Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of​

supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State].​

Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . . [D]octrinal attempts at spiriting away sovereignty must remain meaningless.​

​

Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage • Page 820​

sovereignty; sovranty. The former spelling is preferred. Brierly rightly calls sovereignty a “much abused word.” J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations 150 (5th ed. 1955). It has three primary senses:​

​

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;​

​

(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or​

​

(3) “a territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.” To the international lawyer, sovereignty “is not a metaphysical concept, nor is it part of the essence of statehood; it is merely a term which designates an aggregate of particular and very extensive claims that states habitually make for themselves in their relations with other states [sense (1)]. To the extent that sovereignty had come to imply that there is something inherent in the nature of states that makes it impossible for them to be subjected to law, it is a false doctrine which the facts of international relations do not support.” Id. at 48-49.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Absent a treaty, conquest is the only option left.

(COMMENT)

This is simply not true. And I've sent the link many times that explain the various alternatives.

BTW, the people are sovereign not governments or states.

(COMMENT)

You are confusing the context in the meaning. BTW, many words have multiple meanings depending on the context and usage.

In a monarchy, the "sovereign" is essentially the King.

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 159​

State immunity is also known as sovereign immunity, reflecting its origins in the sanctity of​

kingship.​

​

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 170​

This follows Article 11 of the European Convention and the general trend of state practice. Under the UN Convention, the European Convention and the UK and US Acts, the tort exception applies even when the act was ostensibly performed in exercise of sovereign authority.​

​

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 108​

There could, however, be occasions when an overseas territory has concluded a treaty in its own name and without any authority from the parent state. Whether the territory’s lack of competence to conclude the treaty was manifest will depend on the circumstances, but a foreign ministry should be able to distinguish overseas territories from sovereign states.​

​

Handbook of International Law (Oxford) Page 108​

The establishment of diplomatic relations and permanent diplomatic missions requires the consent of both states (Article 2). They must be sovereign states and must recognise each other as such. Recognition is usually soon followed by the establishment of diplomatic relations, and sometimes the establishment of relations constitutes the act of recognition.​

Alternative perspectives:

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • Page 563​

sovereignty • ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.​

Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of​

supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State].​

Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . . [D]octrinal attempts at spiriting away sovereignty must remain meaningless.​

​

Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage • Page 820​

sovereignty; sovranty. The former spelling is preferred. Brierly rightly calls sovereignty a “much abused word.” J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations 150 (5th ed. 1955). It has three primary senses:​

​

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;​

​

(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or​

​

(3) “a territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.” To the international lawyer, sovereignty “is not a metaphysical concept, nor is it part of the essence of statehood; it is merely a term which designates an aggregate of particular and very extensive claims that states habitually make for themselves in their relations with other states [sense (1)]. To the extent that sovereignty had come to imply that there is something inherent in the nature of states that makes it impossible for them to be subjected to law, it is a false doctrine which the facts of international relations do not support.” Id. at 48-49.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Absent a treaty, conquest is the only option left.

(COMMENT)

This is simply not true. And I've sent the link many times that explain the various alternatives.
\
OK, so which one does Israel use?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel is not, at the moment, trying to adhere to a specific regiment or protocol. It is maintaining such control as to protect the territorial integrity and citizenry of the State of Israel from the activities of the various Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The maintenance of the territorial integrity (Article 2§4 of the UN Charter proscribed the threat or use of force against, inter alia , ‘the territorial integrity) is essential to the safety of the Jewish National Home, as well as, the protection of the most advanced nation in the realm of Human Development within the entire region. Those hostile and pro-Palestinian influences attempting to injure the State of Israel are, in the long run, attempting to undermine the entire Middle East and North Africa Region.

OK, so which one does Israel use?

(COMMENT)

Israel appears to be adopting a complex policy of:

◈ Working in its own best interest (as do the members of the Quartet).​

​

◈ Attempting to further efforts that will ultimately benefit regional neighbors.​

The current direction of Israeli Policy and intent "might be" interpreted as a means of national defense and not solely as a tool of territorial acquisition (in the face of an Arab Palestine Regime that has adopted no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations as a diplomatic policy).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel is not, at the moment, trying to adhere to a specific regiment or protocol. It is maintaining such control as to protect the territorial integrity and citizenry of the State of Israel from the activities of the various Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The maintenance of the territorial integrity (Article 2§4 of the UN Charter proscribed the threat or use of force against, inter alia , ‘the territorial integrity) is essential to the safety of the Jewish National Home, as well as, the protection of the most advanced nation in the realm of Human Development within the entire region. Those hostile and pro-Palestinian influences attempting to injure the State of Israel are, in the long run, attempting to undermine the entire Middle East and North Africa Region.

OK, so which one does Israel use?

(COMMENT)

Israel appears to be adopting a complex policy of:

◈ Working in its own best interest (as do the members of the Quartet).​

​

◈ Attempting to further efforts that will ultimately benefit regional neighbors.​

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, what a duck!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW, what a duck!

(QUESTION)

Assuming that any common diplomatic or political common ground can be achieved, what posture would you adopt in the face of a hostile neighbor that has decided to maintain a position of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW, what a duck!

(QUESTION)

Assuming that any common diplomatic or political common ground can be achieved, what posture would you adopt in the face of a hostile neighbor that has decided to maintain a position of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

Why would they have that position?

BTW, nice deflection.