Palestinian Politics: Representation and Accountability with Ms. Noura Erakat

[P F Tinmore]

Your conclusions are not supported by your source. Feel free to challenge the Oslo Accords in court but as of this message no one has successfully done so and even Erakat made no attempt to deny its legitimacy.

That is just a source. I normally don't single source.

Agreements cannot trump international law. Oslo does not give Israel permission to expropriate land, destroy private property, create or expand settlements. It does not give permission to Israel or the PA to violate the rights of the Palestinians. These are all violations under international law with or without Oslo.

RECOGNIZING that the aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, i.e. the elected Council (hereinafter "the Council" or "the Palestinian Council"), and the elected Ra'ees of the Executive Authority, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years from the date of signing the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (hereinafter "the Gaza-Jericho Agreement") on May 4, 1994, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;

What was Oslo? A five year plan to negotiate peace. That was twenty years ago.

He first states the " Palestinians" don't have to negotiate then he admits that was the plan for the " Two State Solution". . Slip of the tongue

What do you mean?

What is the relevance?

 

[proudveteran06]

That is just a source. I normally don't single source.

Agreements cannot trump international law. Oslo does not give Israel permission to expropriate land, destroy private property, create or expand settlements. It does not give permission to Israel or the PA to violate the rights of the Palestinians. These are all violations under international law with or without Oslo.



What was Oslo? A five year plan to negotiate peace. That was twenty years ago.

He first states the " Palestinians" don't have to negotiate then he admits that was the plan for the " Two State Solution". . Slip of the tongue

What do you mean?

What is the relevance?

You're admitting the purpose of Oslo was to negotiate. Could THAT be the reason why Oslo failed? Naaaaas.

Tell us why Israel would agree to ANY " peace plan"

 

[teddyearp]

Tell me when the Palestinians actually get their shit together enough to actually be credible enough to talk peace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tell me when the Palestinians actually get their shit together enough to actually be credible enough to talk peace.

The so called peace talks are designed to fail.

They always have and always will.

Why bother?

 

[teddyearp]

Tell me when the Palestinians actually get their shit together enough to actually be credible enough to talk peace.

The so called peace talks are designed to fail.

They always have and always will.

Why bother?

If the 'so called' peace talks are designed to fail and always will, who's fault is that? Only the Israelis or only the Palestinians? I am curious to your opinion on this.

And with your last sentence then are we to just go ahead and accept the rockets from Gaza, the raids by the IDF, the kidnappings, bombings, rock throwing, the Iron Dome, and various other violence?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tell me when the Palestinians actually get their shit together enough to actually be credible enough to talk peace.

The so called peace talks are designed to fail.

They always have and always will.

Why bother?

If the 'so called' peace talks are designed to fail and always will, who's fault is that? Only the Israelis or only the Palestinians? I am curious to your opinion on this.

And with your last sentence then are we to just go ahead and accept the rockets from Gaza, the raids by the IDF, the kidnappings, bombings, rock throwing, the Iron Dome, and various other violence?

The people who designed the process.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

Oslo ACCORDS. Not treaty.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

Since when does Israel need consent from the Palestinians to do anything??

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.


(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

Since when does Israel need consent from the Palestinians to do anything??

Rocco said that the Palestinians consented to Israel's violations of international law.

I was merely asking for clarification.

 

[toastman]

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

Since when does Israel need consent from the Palestinians to do anything??

Rocco said that the Palestinians consented to Israel's violations of international law.

I was merely asking for clarification.

Which post did he ask that?? The one you quoted?

 

[proudveteran06]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

Something they should have thought of before the '67 War.

 

[docmauser1]

I am reminded that the Palestinians don't really need my help!

Indeed, palistanians have mastered driveling quite a time ago. And they will celebrate any help that can be stolen, of course.

 

[Phoenall]

The so called peace talks are designed to fail.

They always have and always will.

Why bother?

If the 'so called' peace talks are designed to fail and always will, who's fault is that? Only the Israelis or only the Palestinians? I am curious to your opinion on this.

And with your last sentence then are we to just go ahead and accept the rockets from Gaza, the raids by the IDF, the kidnappings, bombings, rock throwing, the Iron Dome, and various other violence?

The people who designed the process.

So in other words the only process that is valid is the arab muslim one of using violence and bloodshed to get what they want. So let the world take sides and start kicking the crap out of the muslims and see what they say then.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore; et al,

It is not a violation of law.

An accord can authorize the violation of international law?

(COMMENT)

The law speaks to actions taken without consent. In fact, the Accords document the consent by the sole representative of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

Were Arafat signed to allow them to do this, if you don't see it then you should get some new specs.

 

[Phoenall]

Where in the accords did the Palestinians consent to Israel's bulldozing homes, stealing land, and building settlements?

Since when does Israel need consent from the Palestinians to do anything??

Rocco said that the Palestinians consented to Israel's violations of international law.

I was merely asking for clarification.

Detail these violations of International law with transcripts of the charges issued by the ICJ. Or cant you find any so rely on ISLAMONAZI LIARS for your information.

 

[aris2chat]

>>Moreno-Ocampo, in his first visit to Israel, stressed that Gaza's Hamas rulers also could be investigated for rocket fire and suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, if the Palestinians put themselves under the court's jurisdiction. .

The former prosecutor and current Senior Fellow at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University, recommended that Israel and the Palestinians avoid the court and find a "creative" way to resolve their differences. He refused to speculate whether war crimes have been committed by either side.

Moreno-Ocampo was elected as the first ICC prosecutor in 2003 and served in that position until mid-2012. <<
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.589457

 

[teddyearp]

The so called peace talks are designed to fail.

They always have and always will.

Why bother?

If the 'so called' peace talks are designed to fail and always will, who's fault is that? Only the Israelis or only the Palestinians? I am curious to your opinion on this.

And with your last sentence then are we to just go ahead and accept the rockets from Gaza, the raids by the IDF, the kidnappings, bombings, rock throwing, the Iron Dome, and various other violence?

The people who designed the process.

So, then who are they?

 

[RoccoR]

teddyearp, P F Tinmore, et al,

The process is not designed to fail. It is the Palestinians that demand it fails.

If the 'so called' peace talks are designed to fail and always will, who's fault is that? Only the Israelis or only the Palestinians? I am curious to your opinion on this.

And with your last sentence then are we to just go ahead and accept the rockets from Gaza, the raids by the IDF, the kidnappings, bombings, rock throwing, the Iron Dome, and various other violence?

The people who designed the process.

So, then who are they?

(COMMENT)

One only needs to look at the philosophy behind the Palestinians.

• "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
• "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
• " The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination."
• "The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

The alternative the Palestinians have chosen is the plan called "Palestine 194;" where the Palestinians hope to become the 194th member of the United Nations. So far, it sounds like a huge demonstration (million man march type).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

teddyearp, P F Tinmore, et al,

The process is not designed to fail. It is the Palestinians that demand it fails.

The people who designed the process.

So, then who are they?

(COMMENT)

One only needs to look at the philosophy behind the Palestinians.

• "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
• "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
• " The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination."
• "The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

The alternative the Palestinians have chosen is the plan called "Palestine 194;" where the Palestinians hope to become the 194th member of the United Nations. So far, it sounds like a huge demonstration (million man march type).

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not a philosophy. That is their legal position. All historical facts show that they are correct.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can wordsmith this anyway you want and quibble over the context of "philosophy" versus a "legal position." But it amounts to the same outcome.

teddyearp, P F Tinmore, et al,

The process is not designed to fail. It is the Palestinians that demand it fails.

So, then who are they?

(COMMENT)

One only needs to look at the philosophy behind the Palestinians.

• "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
• "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
• " The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination."
• "The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

The alternative the Palestinians have chosen is the plan called "Palestine 194;" where the Palestinians hope to become the 194th member of the United Nations. So far, it sounds like a huge demonstration (million man march type).

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not a philosophy. That is their legal position. All historical facts show that they are correct.

(COMMENT)

All States shall comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavour to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective.

The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered

• Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
  
• States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625

There is no question that the Palestinians come to the table with (as you call it) "their legal position" - absent any "good faith" and holding that the "process" under discussion is a "waste of time and vain endeavors." Entering any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement, is bound to fail with such a backbone.

If there is a reason that negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement talks fail, surely --- this is a major contributor if not the cause of such failures.

The Palestinians, in adhering to the "legal positions" (supra) guarantee failure even before negotiators take their seats.

Most Respectfully,
R