Palestinian Peace Proposal

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No duck here at all. None at all.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH yes... The fact that you have to ask what the right thing to do --- explains the confusion. Jihad is NEVER the right thing to do.

HAMAS official policy is that Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine...

What would you suggest to liberate Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Follow the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; to include:

• Refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
• Refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
• Refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ducking the question.

(COMMENT)

Q: What would you suggest to liberate Palestine?
A: Follow the principles in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States!

The Palestinians have already decided that Jihad is the solution. So be it. But remember it is an act of war; a war the Palestinians will not win.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have consistently called for peace based on international law. It looks like you and the Palestinians are in agreement on this issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are being somewhat naive here.

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's aggression.

(COMMENT)

No conflict is based on a one-for-one death to determine the victor of the conflict. That is simply foolish logic. Each opponent in the combat engagement attempts to dispatch the opponent in a decisive manner.

By "drop in the bucket" --- you are complementing the Israeli Defensive response which protects its citizens better and dispatches its opponents in greater numbers.

Hamas attacks in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

No, absolutely incorrect. HAMAS made its attacks against the Sovereign State of Israel, as recognized by A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949; and not the territory under the mandate. This is as I stated previously, this is merely an attempt by Palestinians to intentionally circumventing the intent of diplomatic principles and international laws or policies.

Israel attacks in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Again, this is an attempt to intentionally circumventing the concept intent of diplomatic principles and international laws or policies. Israel was defending its sovereignty and its citizenry under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter; (Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security); to wit --- acts of aggression as defined by Definition of Aggression (Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.).

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea." If it were true, then it would be, at least by now, a theme that describes a civil war. But it is not true. Israel was established in accordance with the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly. Without regard to the argument of borders, for which is contentious even within the Palestinian convoluted government, Israel has established sovereign control and established its borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

What the hell is wrong with you????

Could I take that as a no?

 

[toastman]

Take what as a no ? Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza. What is there to prove? It's common knowledge.

You asked him to disprove something that you didn't even prove. You're like a little child. Why do you bother debating here when you are wrong 99% of the time?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at the map on the right

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is so strange!

P F Tinmore, et al,

No duck here at all. None at all.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH yes... The fact that you have to ask what the right thing to do --- explains the confusion. Jihad is NEVER the right thing to do.

HAMAS official policy is that Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine...

What would you suggest to liberate Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Follow the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; to include:

• Refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
• Refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
• Refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ducking the question.

(COMMENT)

Q: What would you suggest to liberate Palestine?
A: Follow the principles in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States!

The Palestinians have already decided that Jihad is the solution. So be it. But remember it is an act of war; a war the Palestinians will not win.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have consistently called for peace based on international law. It looks like you and the Palestinians are in agreement on this issue.

(COMMENT)

OK, let's see it.

Where is this call for peace?
And if they want peace, why did they

• Seriously intimidating a population,
• Unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
• Seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;​

What specific law do the Palestinian ask for in there peace bid?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'll give you the general list of terms that are use in the law enforcement, intelligence and security circles.

[QUOTE ="P F Tinmore, post: 11474719, member: 21837"]What do you mean by illicit?[/ QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

How do small arms become illicit? (Office for Disarmament Affairs - UNODA)
Sources of small arms supplies to areas of crisis and conflict are varied. Domestically, small arms can enter
illicit circulation through distribution, theft, leakage, divergence, pilferage or resale. Shipments of small arms to conflict zones from abroad are most often small-scale consignments - a steady trickle of weapons across porous borders. The cumulative destabilizing force of such small-scale trade is not to be underestimated, particularly in unstable regions where small arms are traded from one conflict to another.

Terms and Definitions

• • Ammunition: shells and missiles for light weapons; containers with missiles or shells for single-action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems; anti-personnel and anti-tank hand grenades; and landmines.(Source: Report of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms)
  • Illegal black market transfers "In clear violation of national and/or international laws and without official government consent or control, these transfers may involve corrupt government officials acting on their own for personal gain." (Source: Small Arms Survey 2001, p. 167)
  • Illicit grey market transfers "Governments, their agents, or individuals exploiting loopholes or intentionally circumventing national and/or international laws or policies" (Source: Small Arms Survey 2001, p. 167)
  • Legal Transfers "These occur with either the active or passive involvement of governments or their authorized agents, and in accordance with both national and international law." (Source: Small Arms Survey 2001, p. 167)
  • Light weapons: heavy machine-guns; hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns; portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems; portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems; mortars of calibers of less than 100 mm. (Source: Report of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms)
  • Small arms: revolvers and self-loading pistols; rifles and carbines; sub-machine guns;assault rifles; light machine-guns. (Source: Report of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms)

The general understandings pertaining to what the UN intent is contained in A/52/298 27 August 1997. The central list for most SALW resolution can be found at UNODA website.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 11474719, member: 21837"]It is legal for Palestinians to import an manufacture arms.

(COMMENT)

First: Only to the extent that it does not counter the strengthen coordination and cooperation among States in combating crimes that might be connected with terrorism, including drug trafficking in all its aspects, illicit arms trade, in particular of small arms and light weapons, including man-portable air defense systems , money laundering and smuggling of nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological and other potentially deadly materials. (A/RES/60/288)

Second: When such weapons are not used to violate international law and treaties; or threaten the sovereignty and integrity of another nation; violating Customary International Humanitarian Law or the associated treaties. (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)

Remembering that governments, their agents, and other individuals attempting to exploit loopholes or intentionally circumventing international laws and diplomatic principles to accommodate their political agenda is NOT considered lawful. This would include supplying asymmetric forces, insurgents, jihadist and other designated terrorist activities with weapons.

Most Respectfully,
R

But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?[/QUOTE]




Right up until they become OFFENSIVE weapons, which is the case in gaza. Any weapon entering gaza is intended to be used OFFENSIVELY as hamas has stated. So guess your argument fails once again.

By the way IED's are not defensive they are terror weapons, rockets fired at civilians are not defensive they are terror weapons and lastly H.E packed into tunnels under Israel schools are not defensive they are terror weapons

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The category of defensive" cannot be justified is the State supports armed conflict against a member nation, or supports jihadist action. Nor can defensive be considered a justification when the military wing is of the state is a designated terrorist organization.

But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?

(COMMENT)

You cannot declare a Chapter VII, Article 51, defense when the state is firing rockets and mortars across its borders (into another member nations sovereignty) and making armed incursions into another sovereignty to commit acts of war, kidnaping and murder in violation of international customary law or in violation of humanitarian law.

Most Respectfully,
R

All third grade name calling aside, there is no border between Gaza and Israel. They are the same place.

Correct as the Lon granted the land to Isreal in 1923, and spelt out the borders of the National Home of the Jews. These included gaza, Golan heights and the whole of the west bank. The arab muslims claim that these borders were those of the nation of Palestine and fail to produce any evidence to substantiate their claims

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The category of defensive" cannot be justified is the State supports armed conflict against a member nation, or supports jihadist action. Nor can defensive be considered a justification when the military wing is of the state is a designated terrorist organization.

But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?

(COMMENT)

You cannot declare a Chapter VII, Article 51, defense when the state is firing rockets and mortars across its borders (into another member nations sovereignty) and making armed incursions into another sovereignty to commit acts of war, kidnaping and murder in violation of international customary law or in violation of humanitarian law.

Most Respectfully,
R

All third grade name calling aside, there is no border between Gaza and Israel. They are the same place.

Gaza is part of Palestine. There is no border because there has not been a peace agreements yet.

Are you pretending to be dumb?

He does not need to pretend.................

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The category of defensive" cannot be justified is the State supports armed conflict against a member nation, or supports jihadist action. Nor can defensive be considered a justification when the military wing is of the state is a designated terrorist organization.

But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?

(COMMENT)

You cannot declare a Chapter VII, Article 51, defense when the state is firing rockets and mortars across its borders (into another member nations sovereignty) and making armed incursions into another sovereignty to commit acts of war, kidnaping and murder in violation of international customary law or in violation of humanitarian law.

Most Respectfully,
R

All third grade name calling aside, there is no border between Gaza and Israel. They are the same place.

Gaza is part of Palestine. There is no border because there has not been a peace agreements yet.

Are you pretending to be dumb?

You don't understand what you just said.

You can go from Palestine Gaza to Palestine West Bank without crossing any border. Interesting dat.

Why is it interesting as the borders have yet to be negotiated. Until then the cease fire line act as unofficial borders and both parties have set up border crossings on these lines. I would like to see you physically go from the west bank to Israel and then to gaza

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Look who is ducking the facts!

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.

(COMMENT)

I suppose you are trying to say that the UN is wrong... You like to suggest this, but we all know it is not fact.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948

You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this. "That has never happened."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.

Only because the arab muslims refuse to give up their aim of world domination

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Look who is ducking the facts!

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.

(COMMENT)

I suppose you are trying to say that the UN is wrong... You like to suggest this, but we all know it is not fact.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948

You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this. "That has never happened."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine (?) offered to recognize Israel on the '67 borders.Those who want the partition have jumped on the bandwagon.

However, Israel rejected the offer. '67 borders are out.

Now back to my deflected question.

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The category of defensive" cannot be justified is the State supports armed conflict against a member nation, or supports jihadist action. Nor can defensive be considered a justification when the military wing is of the state is a designated terrorist organization.

But importing defensive weapons is OK, right?

(COMMENT)

You cannot declare a Chapter VII, Article 51, defense when the state is firing rockets and mortars across its borders (into another member nations sovereignty) and making armed incursions into another sovereignty to commit acts of war, kidnaping and murder in violation of international customary law or in violation of humanitarian law.

Most Respectfully,
R

All third grade name calling aside, there is no border between Gaza and Israel. They are the same place.

Correct as the Lon granted the land to Isreal in 1923, and spelt out the borders of the National Home of the Jews. These included gaza, Golan heights and the whole of the west bank. The arab muslims claim that these borders were those of the nation of Palestine and fail to produce any evidence to substantiate their claims

The LoN never annexed that territory (or any territory) so it was not theirs to give away.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you will notice that the UN has already decided that the Resolution was implemented; maybe not to your satisfaction, but it was implemented and used as a reference up to and through the last status change for the State of Palestine.

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

AGAIN --- very plain and simple.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948

You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this. "That has never happened."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

Now it is my turn.

Do you have anything from the UN that says after 4 December 2012 that says otherwise?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

first off, the League of Nations did not have to annex any territory. It was unconditionally surrender by the Ottoman Empire. But that is only relevant to your claim that you KNOW for a fact that the territory had to be annexed before disposition is made. You actually cannot find any international that requires that.

The LoN never annexed that territory (or any territory) so it was not theirs to give away.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty and independence can be acquired a couple of different ways. The most common are by the "right of self-determination" and the other it by "Treaty;" as we discussed in Posting #141 - nearly a 100 responses back. Remember, we talked about Jordan and the Treaty that gave the Emir sovereign status; and Israel that through the avenue afforded it by the "Step Preparatory to Independence" --- Declared Independence. See Postings #123 Examples of Israel/Jordan --- and --- Posting #120 The Unconditional Surrender/the Westphalia System Peace of Westphalia (composed of the: Treaty of Münster --- and --- Treaty of Osnabrück)/and the Application.

Whether or no you believe this make-believe International Law that requires annexation, or not, is irrelevant to the conditions that formed Israel. Because they were not awarded their territory by the Mandatory or League --- they declared independence.

Your argument is not of any value here. In the first half of the 20th Century, the Council/Assembly was still using protocols that originated with the the concepts that forged the fundamentals of the Westphalia Treaties. We were not following the demands of the population --- formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(in league with the Central Powers of WWI and the Axis Powers of WWII).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you will notice that the UN has already decided that the Resolution was implemented; maybe not to your satisfaction, but it was implemented and used as a reference up to and through the last status change for the State of Palestine.

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

AGAIN --- very plain and simple.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948

You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this. "That has never happened."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

Now it is my turn.

Do you have anything from the UN that says after 4 December 2012 that says otherwise?

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see a Jewish state and an Arab state on the proposed borders. I don't see an international city of Jerusalem.

So what makes you think that resolution 181 was implemented besides some political blabber out of the UN?

Now can we get back to my question that you have been ducking?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

first off, the League of Nations did not have to annex any territory. It was unconditionally surrender by the Ottoman Empire. But that is only relevant to your claim that you KNOW for a fact that the territory had to be annexed before disposition is made. You actually cannot find any international that requires that.

The LoN never annexed that territory (or any territory) so it was not theirs to give away.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty and independence can be acquired a couple of different ways. The most common are by the "right of self-determination" and the other it by "Treaty;" as we discussed in Posting #141 - nearly a 100 responses back. Remember, we talked about Jordan and the Treaty that gave the Emir sovereign status; and Israel that through the avenue afforded it by the "Step Preparatory to Independence" --- Declared Independence. See Postings #123 Examples of Israel/Jordan --- and --- Posting #120 The Unconditional Surrender/the Westphalia System Peace of Westphalia (composed of the: Treaty of Münster --- and --- Treaty of Osnabrück)/and the Application.

Whether or no you believe this make-believe International Law that requires annexation, or not, is irrelevant to the conditions that formed Israel. Because they were not awarded their territory by the Mandatory or League --- they declared independence.

Your argument is not of any value here. In the first half of the 20th Century, the Council/Assembly was still using protocols that originated with the the concepts that forged the fundamentals of the Westphalia Treaties. We were not following the demands of the population --- formerly under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(in league with the Central Powers of WWI and the Axis Powers of WWII).

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel declared independence from whom?

With whom did Israel fight its war of independence?

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Look who is ducking the facts!

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.

(COMMENT)

I suppose you are trying to say that the UN is wrong... You like to suggest this, but we all know it is not fact.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948

You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this. "That has never happened."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine (?) offered to recognize Israel on the '67 borders.Those who want the partition have jumped on the bandwagon.

However, Israel rejected the offer. '67 borders are out.

Now back to my deflected question.

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

It was the 67 borders that allowed the Arab nations to unite to attempt to annihilate Israel. Never again. Deal with it.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Look who is ducking the facts!

It is what it is.

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the Palestinians have the proof of concept.

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: Key Factors PLO-NAD

Dr. Erekat called on the international community to assume its responsibility towards promoting peace by ensuring the implementation of the principles, rights, and recommendations outlined in the ICJ ruling. “The recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border embodies the spirit and legal principles of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. Now is the time for states to make the sovereign decision to recognize Palestine and stand on the right side of history,” he concluded.
SOURCE: Press Release: 9 JUL 2011 PLO-NAD

Most Respectfully,
R

Some are still trying to push partition. That has never happened.

You are ducking the question.

(COMMENT)

I suppose you are trying to say that the UN is wrong... You like to suggest this, but we all know it is not fact.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." - See more at: Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release 17 May 1948

You are clearly spreading misinformation every time you say this. "That has never happened."

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine (?) offered to recognize Israel on the '67 borders.Those who want the partition have jumped on the bandwagon.

However, Israel rejected the offer. '67 borders are out.

Now back to my deflected question.

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

]How about a LINK to these '67 borders that shows who signed for Israel and who signed for Palestine. The only link I can find clearly states that these lines are not to be taken as borders and refer to the ceasefire lines of the 6 days war. The land on the Israeli side of these lines includes all of the west bank, Golan heights, gaza and the Sinai.

Israel will be only too happy to agree those "borders"