What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
Solution to what?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
3,066
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
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?"

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:


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?"
.
1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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?"

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:


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?"
.
1611604183365.png

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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,589
Reaction score
5,869
Points
1,830
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

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
3,066
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
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.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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.

1611604183365.png

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

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
3,066
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
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​
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.
1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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​
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.
1611604183365.png

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

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
3,066
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
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."

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,589
Reaction score
5,869
Points
1,830
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?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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."

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
What part of all that refutes my post?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
63,521
Reaction score
2,999
Points
1,815
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."

1611604183365.png

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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,589
Reaction score
5,869
Points
1,830
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?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top