Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

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

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

Link?

THE LINK: Excerpt • 2012 Memo • UN Legal Affairs Ofc

​

What part of all that refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

Each one of your centeral assertions was challenged in Posting 2172. Your application of the Ostrich Effect is getting tiresome.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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



THE LINK: Excerpt • 2012 Memo • UN Legal Affairs Ofc

View attachment 544038
​

(COMMENT)

Each one of your centeral assertions was challenged in Posting 2172. Your application of the Ostrich Effect is getting tiresome.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the UN still believes in the long dead two state solution.

I don't see your point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And the UN still believes in the long dead two state solution.

I don't see your point.

BTW, solution to what?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Nothing was changed because neither assertion is true.

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?

(COMMENT)

Under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, wherein "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The Government of Palestine was established as an administrative framework for the Allied Powers (the parties concerned). It was an entity and NOT an independent state. The Arab Palestinians (for whatever reason - it being their choice - thus their fault) declined to start the process of creating self-governing institutions.

It should be noted that the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory" were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that surrendered. The were under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint military administration over Levantine provinces before coming under the Civil Administration.

The fact the Allied Powers were essentially foreign to the Levantine Provinces has no being on the situation. The "are Palestinians were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that " renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: Nothing was changed because neither assertion is true.


(COMMENT)

Under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, wherein "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The Government of Palestine was established as an administrative framework for the Allied Powers (the parties concerned). It was an entity and NOT an independent state. The Arab Palestinians (for whatever reason - it being their choice - thus their fault) declined to start the process of creating self-governing institutions.

It should be noted that the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory" were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that surrendered. The were under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint military administration over Levantine provinces before coming under the Civil Administration.

The fact the Allied Powers were essentially foreign to the Levantine Provinces has no being on the situation. The "are Palestinians were a component of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that " renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers."

Most Respectfully,
R

The land went to the respective territories and the prople went with it. It was a package deal. The Allied Powers were outside of that loop.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: The Negotiation Affairs Department sets the nine central issue for which the Conflict attempts to force a solution.

​

BTW, solution to what?

(COMMENT)

Of the nine Central Issues, over half have been a part of the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" (PSN) for over a quarter of a century. And the Arab Palestinians have consistently ignored the PSN process all this time. And while the Arab Palestinians claim that they abandon the Three No's (no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel) their actions have demonstrated they still implement this policy (by other means and names).

So when you ask, a solution to what, is depends on the aspect angle you view the question.

◈ IF you are viewing the question from the Israeli side, THEN it is all about protecting the citizenry from attack, and to maintain free trade and commerce. It is also about the continued defense against the outcomes to the incitement to violence and the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.​

​

◈ IF you are viewing the question from Arab Palestinian side, THEN it is to maintain a steady flow of monetary donations, and a hold on the power and influence over the unwitting general population of Arab Palestinians on the lower end of the economic development.​

While some people within the general population of the Arab Palestinians might say they are in a struggle for the Right to Return (RoR), the validity of this claim is tainted by the fact that only about 5% or less of the population is of an age that might have lived during the Israeli War of Independence. So it is not reasonable to assume that the conflict is actually driven by the the Arab Palestinians RoR. This aspect of the struggle is to maintain the status quo for criminal exploration purposes.

If you listen to a vast majority of the views that you post, ask your self who are the complainants and what do they get out of it?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

The land went to the respective territories and the prople went with it. It was a package deal. The Allied Powers were outside of that loop.

(COMMENT)

You must have an attention deficit disorder. As I said in Posting #2172, the actions were all about not creating "Stateless People." You CAN NOT claim that the people of that portion of the Levant were citizens of the State of Palestine. It simply had NOT been established yet. I'm not exactly sure that it exists even today.

What loop? There is NO loop. The Allied Powers set the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: The Negotiation Affairs Department sets the nine central issue for which the Conflict attempts to force a solution.

View attachment 544057
​

(COMMENT)

Of the nine Central Issues, over half have been a part of the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" (PSN) for over a quarter of a century. And the Arab Palestinians have consistently ignored the PSN process all this time. And while the Arab Palestinians claim that they abandon the Three No's (no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel) their actions have demonstrated they still implement this policy (by other means and names).

So when you ask, a solution to what, is depends on the aspect angle you view the question.

◈ IF you are viewing the question from the Israeli side, THEN it is all about protecting the citizenry from attack, and to maintain free trade and commerce. It is also about the continued defense against the outcomes to the incitement to violence and the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.​

​

◈ IF you are viewing the question from Arab Palestinian side, THEN it is to maintain a steady flow of monetary donations, and a hold on the power and influence over the unwitting general population of Arab Palestinians on the lower end of the economic development.​

While some people within the general population of the Arab Palestinians might say they are in a struggle for the Right to Return (RoR), the validity of this claim is tainted by the fact that only about 5% or less of the population is of an age that might have lived during the Israeli War of Independence. So it is not reasonable to assume that the conflict is actually driven by the the Arab Palestinians RoR. This aspect of the struggle is to maintain the status quo for criminal exploration purposes.

If you listen to a vast majority of the views that you post, ask your self who are the complainants and what do they get out of it?

Most Respectfully,
R

The term solution implies that there is a problem to resolve.

What is it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Allied Powers set the administration of the territory of Palestine,

Whose territory?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: What do you make of this?

Whose territory?

(COMMENT)

In 1920, the Allied Powers had not yet made a final determination on the disposition of the territory which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.

By 1948/1949, the Disposition of the territory was throughly scrambled by the advent of Arab League Forces and the political decisions made by the principle actors. The Arab League debacle has not yet been resolved.

The term solution implies that there is a problem to resolve.

What is it?

(COMMENT)

Well, it could be a problem; or merely the perception of a problem. It is actually a disagreement on territorial integrity and control.

I tend to think it is rather naive for you to believes that an individual such as yourself can correctly perceives the objects and events in the world and that is all that there is to perception. I often think that the multi-political dimension of the issues revolving around the "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace" is as difficult for you to comprehend as it is for others to transition between "relativity" and "quantum mechanics."

When you ask for a solution to the problem (which was briefly defined in Posting #2186) might be likened to the paradox of the Life Signs to Schrödinger’s Cat (poor Ace: is he dead or alive). You are uncertain as to the Life Signs until you open the box. But in the interim, "Ace" can be both dead and alive. Will any politically accepted solution lead to "stabilized peace?" Rarely do we observe in politics the acceptance of recommendations without other fingerprints on them. In Posting #2144, we see five individual solutions. If a single solution is selected, then the possibilities are one out of 5. If a combination of 2 solutions occurs, then the possibilities becomes 9. If the selection is a combination of 3, then the number of solutions, and so on. And then, include the 9 major issue as noted by the Negotiation Affairs Department.

Now think about the number of moving parts when you look clinically at the "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace." I think there are about 6 active terrorist organizations that want their voice. Add to the the Quartet, then add to that the Arab League States in close proximity. And then, look at the outriders like the Quds Force or the Pakistani Clandestine Intelligence Service. And then, that does not exclude the effect on the weapons trade and what they might have an impact on.

I sense a completely different set of variable that come into play. Whereas, you tend to be a bit dogmatic. You have undoubtedly read some grad-students paper on the issue that come to a conclusion amenable to your position.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: What do you make of this?


(COMMENT)

In 1920, the Allied Powers had not yet made a final determination on the disposition of the territory which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.

By 1948/1949, the Disposition of the territory was throughly scrambled by the advent of Arab League Forces and the political decisions made by the principle actors. The Arab League debacle has not yet been resolved.


(COMMENT)

Well, it could be a problem; or merely the perception of a problem. It is actually a disagreement on territorial integrity and control.

I tend to think it is rather naive for you to believes that an individual such as yourself can correctly perceives the objects and events in the world and that is all that there is to perception. I often think that the multi-political dimension of the issues revolving around the "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace" is as difficult for you to comprehend as it is for others to transition between "relativity" and "quantum mechanics."

When you ask for a solution to the problem (which was briefly defined in Posting #2186) might be likened to the paradox of the Life Signs to Schrödinger’s Cat (poor Ace: is he dead or alive). You are uncertain as to the Life Signs until you open the box. But in the interim, "Ace" can be both dead and alive. Will any politically accepted solution lead to "stabilized peace?" Rarely do we observe in politics the acceptance of recommendations without other fingerprints on them. In Posting #2144, we see five individual solutions. If a single solution is selected, then the possibilities are one out of 5. If a combination of 2 solutions occurs, then the possibilities becomes 9. If the selection is a combination of 3, then the number of solutions, and so on. And then, include the 9 major issue as noted by the Negotiation Affairs Department.

Now think about the number of moving parts when you look clinically at the "asymmetric conflict" versus the "stabilize peace." I think there are about 6 active terrorist organizations that want their voice. Add to the the Quartet, then add to that the Arab League States in close proximity. And then, look at the outriders like the Quds Force or the Pakistani Clandestine Intelligence Service. And then, that does not exclude the effect on the weapons trade and what they might have an impact on.

I sense a completely different set of variable that come into play. Whereas, you tend to be a bit dogmatic. You have undoubtedly read some grad-students paper on the issue that come to a conclusion amenable to your position.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you and that is why there is no peace,

 

[P F Tinmore]

Amer Zahr about Palestine, 2021 National Lawyers Guild Annual Meeting​

 

[P F Tinmore]

20th Anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism and the Durban Civil Society Declaration​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Losers trying to shut down the debates.

Academic Speech and Freedom on Palestine Under Attack​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian intellectual Joseph Massad joins the EI podcast for a wide-ranging discussion on the true role of the Palestinian Authority as Israel's collaborator.

 

[rylah]

20th Anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism and the Durban Civil Society Declaration​

QUESTION:

Does it bother them that none of the Pali governments
EVER allow an African into their parliament?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Censoring Palestine: The Weaponisation Of Anti-Semitism​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is this the end of the Palestinian Authority?​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hanan Ashrawi to MEE: Israel ‘wants to maintain an exclusivity over being the victim’​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hamas senior leader Khaled Meshaal talks to MEE​