Palestine Today

[rylah]

Looking Forward: The Work of Interfaith Peace-Builders

How do you know there's no truth in that forum?

Notice how its all one sided.
Notice how real questions about interfaith relations are avoided.
Notice how there's not a single non-Jewish participant critical of his own group.

Everything is oversimplified, void of real substance, out of fear to face any hard questions.

Truth does not even remotely concern them.

 

[rylah]

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?

OK, so which one does Israel use?

Liberation.
Or in the language of international law - 'Re-Constitution'.

 

[rylah]

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

 

[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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

 

[rylah]

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?

OK, so which one does Israel use?

Liberation.
Or in the language of international law - 'Re-Constitution'.

Well Tinnie,
it would be a great surprise if you were actually capable of addressing anything with substance,
rather than stubbornly avoid facing challenging facts you can't compute.

So predictable, pathetic really.

 

[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?

OK, so which one does Israel use?

Liberation.
Or in the language of international law - 'Re-Constitution'.

Well Tinnie,
it would be a great surprise if you were actually capable of addressing anything with substance,
rather than stubbornly avoid facing challenging facts you can't compute.

So predictable, pathetic really.

You need to post something of substance before I can respond in kind.

 

[rylah]

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

 

[rylah]

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?

OK, so which one does Israel use?

Liberation.
Or in the language of international law - 'Re-Constitution'.

Well Tinnie,
it would be a great surprise if you were actually capable of addressing anything with substance,
rather than stubbornly avoid facing challenging facts you can't compute.

So predictable, pathetic really.

You need to post something of substance before I can respond in kind.

If international law is not enough a substance in your view,
then why the need to so desperately rush to deny it?

But again, you're so predictable in self contradiction, it pathetic.

 

[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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty.

Do you mean like the United States?

 

[rylah]

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

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.

It takes much more than casual presence of random individuals to constitute a 'people',
let alone sovereign nation.

Do you mean like everyone having the same citizenship and living in the same place?

Yes, it takes much more than that.
Like its own national identity for example.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty. Merely subjects of the sovereign nation.

Turkish and Armenian citizens of Greece or Ireland - do not suffice separate sovereignty.

Simple as that.

A mixed multitude of people being citizens of a defined nation,
don't constitute a separate sovereignty.

Do you mean like the United States?

Of course not, because that's neither the type of a state Jewish nationalism was seeking.
Nor what Arab nationalism pretends to.

US is not a nation state.
The comparison is irrelevant in given situation.

 

[rylah]

P F Tinmore,
frankly I find it staggering how one can invest so much time and energy in a subject,
yet lack elementary understanding about it.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: False or Inappropriate analogy.

Do you mean like the United States?

(COMMENT)

Governments that are formed through self-determination paint their own and unique face. They are what they are because of self-determination. The face and nature of America is different because the efforts behind their self-determination were different, from the pressures and efforts which formed the Jewish National Home encompassed within the State of Israel.

When you draw a comparison, you must consider the number of times the Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. The difference between the Jewish People that formed Israel and the Arab Palestinians is that the Jewish People had self-determination - were as - the Arab Palestinian will to forge a government was weak and misdirected its efforts (no self-determination).

The "Right of Self-Determination" is not what is written on paper. The paper has no will or capacity of its own. The "Right of Self-Determination" is not what any resolution might describe it as. "Self-determination" is what a group of people has when they come together and work together for a come creation. Even today, there are so many factions of Arab Palestinians, it is difficult to tell what the common goal is; or if there is a common goal.

Example:

You are of a faction that believes the Arab Palestinians should have the territory from the "River to the Sea." There is a different faction that claims the territory encompassed by the old 1949 Armistice Line as maintained up to 4 June 1967. ​

I often hear the Arab Palestinians complain about these border issues. But I don't see them agreeing on a common goal.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

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

BLUF: False or Inappropriate analogy.

Do you mean like the United States?

(COMMENT)

Governments that are formed through self-determination paint their own and unique face. They are what they are because of self-determination. The face and nature of America is different because the efforts behind their self-determination were different, from the pressures and efforts which formed the Jewish National Home encompassed within the State of Israel.

When you draw a comparison, you must consider the number of times the Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. The difference between the Jewish People that formed Israel and the Arab Palestinians is that the Jewish People had self-determination - were as - the Arab Palestinian will to forge a government was weak and misdirected its efforts (no self-determination).

The "Right of Self-Determination" is not what is written on paper. The paper has no will or capacity of its own. The "Right of Self-Determination" is not what any resolution might describe it as. "Self-determination" is what a group of people has when they come together and work together for a come creation. Even today, there are so many factions of Arab Palestinians, it is difficult to tell what the common goal is; or if there is a common goal.

Example:

You are of a faction that believes the Arab Palestinians should have the territory from the "River to the Sea." There is a different faction that claims the territory encompassed by the old 1949 Armistice Line as maintained up to 4 June 1967. ​

I often hear the Arab Palestinians complain about these border issues. But I don't see them agreeing on a common goal.


Most Respectfully,
R

The 'but but but Israel' excuse

in 3...2...1...

 

[rylah]

What I mean to say here ^^^^
Arab Palestinian nationalism is purely a reactionary movement,
void of any independent motivation or distinct identity behind it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: False or Inappropriate analogy.

Do you mean like the United States?

(COMMENT)

Governments that are formed through self-determination paint their own and unique face. They are what they are because of self-determination. The face and nature of America is different because the efforts behind their self-determination were different, from the pressures and efforts which formed the Jewish National Home encompassed within the State of Israel.

When you draw a comparison, you must consider the number of times the Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. The difference between the Jewish People that formed Israel and the Arab Palestinians is that the Jewish People had self-determination - were as - the Arab Palestinian will to forge a government was weak and misdirected its efforts (no self-determination).

The "Right of Self-Determination" is not what is written on paper. The paper has no will or capacity of its own. The "Right of Self-Determination" is not what any resolution might describe it as. "Self-determination" is what a group of people has when they come together and work together for a come creation. Even today, there are so many factions of Arab Palestinians, it is difficult to tell what the common goal is; or if there is a common goal.

Example:

You are of a faction that believes the Arab Palestinians should have the territory from the "River to the Sea." There is a different faction that claims the territory encompassed by the old 1949 Armistice Line as maintained up to 4 June 1967. ​

I often hear the Arab Palestinians complain about these border issues. But I don't see them agreeing on a common goal.


Most Respectfully,
R

the Arab Palestinian will to forge a government was weak and misdirected its efforts (no self-determination).

The right to self determination without external interference.

They did not say "without external interference" because they had some extra ink they had to use up. The Palestinians have not experienced a single day without external interference to this day. The goal of that external interference is to prohibit self determination.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: The phrase "without external interference" is NOT found in the original source law (the UN Charter).

The right to self-determination without external interference.

They did not say "without external interference" because they had some extra ink they had to use up. The Palestinians have not experienced a single day without external interference to this day. The goal of that external interference is to prohibit self-determination.

(COMMENT)

Some 40 years ago, one of the non-binding (not law) GA Resolutions A/RES/35/169(A-E) 15 December 1980 reaffirmed the (so-called) inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, except that it added the phrase (in paragraph 6a) "without external interference."

It is important to remember that no culture in the world develops without some sort of interaction from external influence. It would be absurd to make it illegal for one country to influence another country. And, as some have suggested, the current charter has, for seventy years, allowed countries to engage in "collective self-defense."

It is reasonably clear that the principle of equal rights and self-determination applies to all peoples (Israeli and Arab Palestinian alike) with each having the right to determine, "without external interference," (but not prohibiting external assistance) their political status [(the Jewish people creating Israel with US assistance)(the Arab Palestinians using external Arab League Forces to interfere with the creation of Israel)] and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: The phrase "without external interference" is NOT found in the original source law (the UN Charter).

The right to self-determination without external interference.

They did not say "without external interference" because they had some extra ink they had to use up. The Palestinians have not experienced a single day without external interference to this day. The goal of that external interference is to prohibit self-determination.

(COMMENT)

Some 40 years ago, one of the non-binding (not law) GA Resolutions A/RES/35/169(A-E) 15 December 1980 reaffirmed the (so-called) inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, except that it added the phrase (in paragraph 6a) "without external interference."

It is important to remember that no culture in the world develops without some sort of interaction from external influence. It would be absurd to make it illegal for one country to influence another country. And, as some have suggested, the current charter has, for seventy years, allowed countries to engage in "collective self-defense."

It is reasonably clear that the principle of equal rights and self-determination applies to all peoples (Israeli and Arab Palestinian alike) with each having the right to determine, "without external interference," (but not prohibiting external assistance) their political status [(the Jewish people creating Israel with US assistance)(the Arab Palestinians using external Arab League Forces to interfere with the creation of Israel)] and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right to self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The French have the right to self determination in France. The British do not.

 

[Shusha]

BTW, the people are sovereign not governments or states.

Oh sure, this is a nice little romantic idea, but its legally meaningless. The term "the people" is a concept with no legal application. "The people" are not able to establish contracts or treaties or legal relationships except through the process of creating a separate and distinct legal entity, such as a State.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: You have this all screwed-up.

The right to self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The French have the right to self determination in France. The British do not.

(COMMENT)

The "Right of Self-Determination" has no territorial limitation and no citizenship criteria.

If the British Citizens in France want to establish a new self-governing institution, they have the right to try. It would (most probably) by means of "cession." An "Act of Cession" of territory may be voluntary, as a result of mutual exchange, - or - it may be forced as an outcome of a civil war (examples but not limited to). Cession is one of the five major methods in the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The right to self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The French have the right to self determination in France. The British do not.

Why do the French have the right to self determination in France? What gives them that right?