Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Actually, there is the possibility for:

1. Remain in Conflict. (Status Quo)
2. One-State Solution (Either Israel or Palestine)
3. Two-State Solution (Israel, Palestine)
4. Three State (or more) Solution (Israeli, Gaza, West Bank)

(COMMENT)

In my opinion, the only reasonable solution within reach at this time (given the political stance taken) are Solution 1; Remain in the status quo — and - Solution 4; The Solution of Three States or more.

Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis are going to accept a solution which in the end, places one or the other in a dominant position.

Most Respectfully,
R

Solution to what?

 

[USAF 2023]

Are attitudes towards Palestine shifting in the US?​

UN report outlines how Hamas used kids as human shields

The headlines in most places were entirely predictable: “UN Says Israel Killed 44 Palestinians in Schools During Gaza War.” That was indeed one finding of a UN report published Monday — but only pa…

nypost.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeah, I thought that the response would be along those lines.

Solution to what?

(COMMENT)
.
You can bet your ass it is NOT over the "Right of Return." The "Palestinians have claimed that Israel engaged in illegal ethnic cleansing, and that international law provides a “right of return” for the refugees displaced during what they call al-Nakbah (the catastrophe)." (EVALUATING THE PALESTINIANS’ CLAIMED RIGHT OF RETURN, by ANDREW KENT, Fordham University)


Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "TODAY?"

Article 12. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"

NONE​

There was none. There were several documents that came "AFTER" the "al-Nakbah;" but nothing that was binding before the al-Nakbah. So, who is fighting? And what are they for what?

Like I have said before. There is a disconnect between the generations. Even the White House is confused. But there is a principle of law:

Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court​

Non-retroactivity ratione personae​

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.

So, the question arises again; what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Unable to Accept Alternative Solutions
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeah, I thought that the response would be along those lines.


(COMMENT)
.
You can bet your ass it is NOT over the "Right of Return." The "Palestinians have claimed that Israel engaged in illegal ethnic cleansing, and that international law provides a “right of return” for the refugees displaced during what they call al-Nakbah (the catastrophe)." (EVALUATING THE PALESTINIANS’ CLAIMED RIGHT OF RETURN, by ANDREW KENT, Fordham University)


Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "TODAY?"

Article 12. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

Well what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"

NONE​

There was none. There were several documents that came "AFTER" the "al-Nakbah;" but nothing that was binding before the al-Nakbah. So, who is fighting? And what are they for what?

Like I have said before. There is a disconnect between the generations. Even the White House is confused. But there is a principle of law:

Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court​

Non-retroactivity ratione personae​

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.

So, the question arises again; what does the actual "law" say on the matter "before the al-Nakbah?"
.

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.

The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.

They are the sovereigns of that territory.

Private and communal property belong to the people.

The people belong to the land and the land belongs to the people.

Any violations of these principals require a remedy.

 

[Hollie]

Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.

The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.

They are the sovereigns of that territory.

Private and communal property belong to the people.

The people belong to the land and the land belongs to the people.

Any violations of these principals require a remedy.

Culling such nonsense from youtube videos.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well, your application is compromised. You are mixing the concepts of National and Individual and Territorial Sovereignty.

Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.

(COMMENT)

Oh please!

The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is dependent on what country laws are in play. Your defined territory may vary from other defined territories.

The United States is a defined territory. The people must follow the legislated law enacted. The territory can be altered by extending national sovereignty or discarding such territory as may be decided by the federal government.

The International Civil Law stipulates: "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence." In the case of the originally defined territory by the mandate, this territory changed in both shape and size several times.

They are the sovereigns of that territory.

(COMMENT)

That is certainly NOT true in all cases.

The sovereign of Saudi Arabia is quite different from the sovereign of its neighbors Jordan or Iraq.

The territory under Mandate went through several iterations of the boundaries, shapes, sizes, and national authorities. The territory under the mandate was subject to redistribution processes.

Private and communal property belong to the people.

(COMMENT)

Again, this varies; but, in general, this is a rule of thumb. Private property (the legal term) is (in general) that owned by an entity other than the government.

The people belong to the land and the land belongs to the people.

(COMMENT)

This is a cliché and NOT a legal principle.

Any violations of these principals require a remedy.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are trying to apply a compulsory action. But rectification is not an absolute necessity in all deviations from that standard. And rectification may not be desirable given the adverse possible outcomes that might result.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well, your application is compromised. You are mixing the concepts of National and Individual and Territorial Sovereignty.


(COMMENT)

Oh please!


(COMMENT)

Well, that is dependent on what country laws are in play. Your defined territory may vary from other defined territories.

The United States is a defined territory. The people must follow the legislated law enacted. The territory can be altered by extending national sovereignty or discarding such territory as may be decided by the federal government.

The International Civil Law stipulates: "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence." In the case of the originally defined territory by the mandate, this territory changed in both shape and size several times.


(COMMENT)

That is certainly NOT true in all cases.

The sovereign of Saudi Arabia is quite different from the sovereign of its neighbors Jordan or Iraq.

The territory under Mandate went through several iterations of the boundaries, shapes, sizes, and national authorities. The territory under the mandate was subject to redistribution processes.


(COMMENT)

Again, this varies; but, in general, this is a rule of thumb. Private property (the legal term) is (in general) that owned by an entity other than the government.


(COMMENT)

This is a cliché and NOT a legal principle.


(COMMENT)

Again, you are trying to apply a compulsory action. But rectification is not an absolute necessity in all deviations from that standard. And rectification may not be desirable given the adverse possible outcomes that might result.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore said:


The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.

Can you think of a place where that is not true?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Before you ask such questions, you should read what "national" means. You should read what the convention says.

P F Tinmore said:


The people of a defined territory are the nationals of that territory.

Can you think of a place where that is not true?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Here is what a "national" is and here is what the Convention says.

national A person enjoying the nationality of a given State. ‘[A]s stated in Article 1 of​

the Hague Convention of 1930 on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality​

Laws [ 179 L.N.T.S. 89 ], while it is for each State to determine under its own law who are​

its nationals, such law must be recognised by other States only “in so far as it is consistent​

with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally​

recognised with regard to nationality”’: I Oppenheim 852 and 853 . In certain municipal​

systems, notably that of the United States, the term ‘nationals’ has been used to designate​

persons enjoying narrower rights than those described as citizens: I Oppenheim 856​

and 857 .​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and​

J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. pp 401​

​

CHAPTER I​

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 1​

CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS​

THE HAGUE - 12 APRIL 1930​

It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.​

Nothing has changed the law. Israel (and every other country on the planet) can determine who is a national of their sovereign territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Before you ask such questions, you should read what "national" means. You should read what the convention says.


(COMMENT)

Here is what a "national" is and here is what the Convention says.

national A person enjoying the nationality of a given State. ‘[A]s stated in Article 1 of​

the Hague Convention of 1930 on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality​

Laws [ 179 L.N.T.S. 89 ], while it is for each State to determine under its own law who are​

its nationals, such law must be recognised by other States only “in so far as it is consistent​

with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally​

recognised with regard to nationality”’: I Oppenheim 852 and 853 . In certain municipal​

systems, notably that of the United States, the term ‘nationals’ has been used to designate​

persons enjoying narrower rights than those described as citizens: I Oppenheim 856​

and 857 .​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and​

J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. pp 401​

​

CHAPTER I​

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 1​

CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS​

THE HAGUE - 12 APRIL 1930​

It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.​

Nothing has changed the law. Israel (and every other country on the planet) can determine who is a national of their sovereign territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are making a lot of monkey motions trying to make a point.

When the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and Resolution 181 say one thing and you say something else, who should I believe?

Countries can set immigration policies and determine what foreigners that they will permit to be citizens, but do not have discretion on natural born citizens.

The Palestine Citizenship Order states that Palestine can denationalize and deport Palestinian citizens. However, that does not apply to natural citizens.

There are many prominent Palestinians, like Rashida Tlaib, Janna Jihad, and many others, who are natural US citizens and there is nothing we can do about that.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are grasping at 100 year old straws.

When the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and Resolution 181 say one thing and you say something else, who should I believe?

(COMMENT)

The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred." The intention was for the Great War (WWI) not to create "stateless people." Those "Turkish Subjects" are long since gone.

The territory to which the "Mandate" applied may have been called Palestine, but it was not an independently govern states by the people of that region.

Resolution 181 was a non-binding "recommendation" that addressed an "Arab" State, and a "Jewish" State. The recommendation was for a Two-State solution which the Arab Palestinians rejected; but that the Jewish population accepted and moved forward on.

I do not contradict either the Treaty, the Mandate or the Recommendation.

Countries can set immigration policies and determine what foreigners that they will permit to be citizens, but do not have discretion on natural born citizens.

(COMMENT)

IF you go back to Posting #2170, you will find that the 1930 Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (I invite you to read the title carefully) specifically states in the First Sentence of Article I:

"It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."​

I simply don't understand how you come-up with these separate notions.

The Palestine Citizenship Order states that Palestine can denationalize and deport Palestinian citizens. However, that does not apply to natural citizens.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence. And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.

There are many prominent Palestinians, like Rashida Tlaib, Janna Jihad, and many others, who are natural US citizens and there is nothing we can do about that.

(COMMENT)

And I am not sure what you point is here. And I'm not sure you are even correct here. For instance, it was not until 1977 that Iva Ikuko Toguri d’Aquino (born in the US) (better known as “Tokyo Rose") was granted a full pardon and US citizenship was restored. Toguri was originally sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and stripped of citizenship.

I think you meant to say "Citizen by Birth." NOT a natural Citizen. There are four types of US Citizenship:

◈ Citizenship through Birth​

◈ Citizenship through Acquisition​

◈ Citizenship through Derivation​

◈ Citizenship through Naturalization​

I know that many people use that term (natural citizen) but that is really a bastardized form that can be confused with a "naturalized citizen."

There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

You are making a lot of monkey motions trying to make a point.

When the Treaty of Lausanne, the Mandate, and Resolution 181 say one thing and you say something else, who should I believe?

Countries can set immigration policies and determine what foreigners that they will permit to be citizens, but do not have discretion on natural born citizens.

The Palestine Citizenship Order states that Palestine can denationalize and deport Palestinian citizens. However, that does not apply to natural citizens.

There are many prominent Palestinians, like Rashida Tlaib, Janna Jihad, and many others, who are natural US citizens and there is nothing we can do about that.

When you make false and ridiculous claims such as the Treaty of Lausanne invented a country you call "Palistan'' as well as inventing other ''new states'', the ''monkey motions'' are yours.

What differentiates a ''natural'' from ''un-natural'' citizen?

Can you find a youtube video to explain that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred."

And this applied to every new state in the area except Palestine?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."

The natives are always jerked around. There is nothing new about that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence. And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.

Links?

 

[Hollie]

And this applied to every new state in the area except Palestine?

Link?

Pal'istan was a ''state''?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are grasping at 100 year old straws.


(COMMENT)

The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred." The intention was for the Great War (WWI) not to create "stateless people." Those "Turkish Subjects" are long since gone.

The territory to which the "Mandate" applied may have been called Palestine, but it was not an independently govern states by the people of that region.

Resolution 181 was a non-binding "recommendation" that addressed an "Arab" State, and a "Jewish" State. The recommendation was for a Two-State solution which the Arab Palestinians rejected; but that the Jewish population accepted and moved forward on.

I do not contradict either the Treaty, the Mandate or the Recommendation.


(COMMENT)

IF you go back to Posting #2170, you will find that the 1930 Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (I invite you to read the title carefully) specifically states in the First Sentence of Article I:

"It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."​

I simply don't understand how you come-up with these separate notions.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence. And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.


(COMMENT)

And I am not sure what you point is here. And I'm not sure you are even correct here. For instance, it was not until 1977 that Iva Ikuko Toguri d’Aquino (born in the US) (better known as “Tokyo Rose") was granted a full pardon and US citizenship was restored. Toguri was originally sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and stripped of citizenship.

I think you meant to say "Citizen by Birth." NOT a natural Citizen. There are four types of US Citizenship:

◈ Citizenship through Birth​

◈ Citizenship through Acquisition​

◈ Citizenship through Derivation​

◈ Citizenship through Naturalization​

I know that many people use that term (natural citizen) but that is really a bastardized form that can be confused with a "naturalized citizen."

There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all that refutes my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Sovereignty
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are grasping at 100 year old straws.


(COMMENT)

The State of Palestine was not created until December 2012.
Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is talking about the "State to which such territory is transferred." The intention was for the Great War (WWI) not to create "stateless people." Those "Turkish Subjects" are long since gone.

The territory to which the "Mandate" applied may have been called Palestine, but it was not an independently govern states by the people of that region.

Resolution 181 was a non-binding "recommendation" that addressed an "Arab" State, and a "Jewish" State. The recommendation was for a Two-State solution which the Arab Palestinians rejected; but that the Jewish population accepted and moved forward on.

I do not contradict either the Treaty, the Mandate or the Recommendation.


(COMMENT)

IF you go back to Posting #2170, you will find that the 1930 Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (I invite you to read the title carefully) specifically states in the First Sentence of Article I:

"It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."​

I simply don't understand how you come-up with these separate notions.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order never applied to that portion of the mandate that was granted independence. And it certainly did not apply to any territory at all after the termination of the Mandate.


(COMMENT)

And I am not sure what you point is here. And I'm not sure you are even correct here. For instance, it was not until 1977 that Iva Ikuko Toguri d’Aquino (born in the US) (better known as “Tokyo Rose") was granted a full pardon and US citizenship was restored. Toguri was originally sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and stripped of citizenship.

I think you meant to say "Citizen by Birth." NOT a natural Citizen. There are four types of US Citizenship:

◈ Citizenship through Birth​

◈ Citizenship through Acquisition​

◈ Citizenship through Derivation​

◈ Citizenship through Naturalization​

I know that many people use that term (natural citizen) but that is really a bastardized form that can be confused with a "naturalized citizen."

There is also a special circumstance know as a Native American (Alaskan, Hawaiian, American Indian, and several others) which are considered "citizens through birth."

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinians became Palestinians by international law in 1924 and domestic law in 1925.

Who has the authority, or what foreigners have the authority, to change that?

Links?

 

[Hollie]

Palestinians became Palestinians by international law in 1924 and domestic law in 1925.

Who has the authority, or what foreigners have the authority, to change that?

Links?

The Treaty of Lausanne invented the ''country of Pal'istan'' and invented Pal'istanians by inventing Pal'istanians?

That is one flaming conspiracy theory.

Link?