Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: That is a Bold Face Lie. (And I seldom use that word.)

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.

(COMMENT)

There is no dancing whatsoever. There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member. In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​

There is no dancing around the topic. Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel. For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links (where available).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: That is a Bold Face Lie. (And I seldom use that word.)

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.

(COMMENT)

There is no dancing whatsoever. There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member. In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​

There is no dancing around the topic. Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel. For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links (where available).


Most Respectfully,
R

In order for Israel to claim borders on that territory it had to have legally acquire that territory.

You have been dancing around that issue for years.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: That is a Bold Face Lie. (And I seldom use that word.)

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.

(COMMENT)

There is no dancing whatsoever. There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member. In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​

There is no dancing around the topic. Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel. For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links (where available).


Most Respectfully,
R

16 June 2020 Posting # 2157
23 January 2020 Posting # 374

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Again you are not telling the truth.

In order for Israel to claim borders on that territory it had to have legally acquire that territory.

You have been dancing around that issue for years.

(COMMENT)

The method of acquisition is a political issue to be solved among the state claiming to have some sort of standing.

Sovereignty is a matter of extending the umbrella to own and control some area of the world, the sole right of the authorities of a particular country to take decisions affecting its citizens. Legal or not, if Israel is the sole authority over a territory and declares it annexed, it is so. By international law, it does not require recognition by any other nation. But being ineffective control does not require annexation.

You need to forget about "legally acquired" territory. The world simply does not work that way; it is not ideal. Just look at the Chinese in the South China Sea, or the Russians in the Crimea. Nations are utilitarian; working in their own best interest.

The treaties, agreements, and extended control are done. They are a matter of record and internationally posted according to their type. For the purposes of our discussion, it is done.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: That is a Bold Face Lie. (And I seldom use that word.)

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.

(COMMENT)

There is no dancing whatsoever. There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member. In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​

There is no dancing around the topic. Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel. For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links (where available).


Most Respectfully,
R

16 June 2020 Posting # 2157
23 January 2020 Posting # 374

That still does not address the question.

 

[toastman]

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

BLUF: That is a Bold Face Lie. (And I seldom use that word.)

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.

(COMMENT)

There is no dancing whatsoever. There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member. In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​

There is no dancing around the topic. Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel. For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links (where available).


Most Respectfully,
R

In order for Israel to claim borders on that territory it had to have legally acquire that territory.

You have been dancing around that issue for years.

Got a link for that ?

 

[toastman]

BTW Tinmore, wether or wether not you believe Israel acquired land legally or not, Israel is still a sovereign state, Palestine is not. Israel has internationally recognized borders, Palestine does not.

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: That is a Bold Face Lie. (And I seldom use that word.)

Indeed, and when I ask how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine y'all start dancing.

(COMMENT)

There is no dancing whatsoever. There is no dancing now and there has not been any dancing on this subject since I have been a member. In fact, the answer to the internationally recognized boundaries, border, delimitations, and demarcations associate with Israel have been given to you more than a dozen times by various members to the Discussion Group.

✪ Posting #78 Isreal Lie's​

There is no dancing around the topic. Israel uses the Right of Self-Determination and the actions necessary to defend the citizens of the State of Israel. For Heaven's Sake, don't imply that you have not been given a matter of fact, straight forward, truthful, documented, and concise answer on the issue with links (where available).


Most Respectfully,
R

16 June 2020 Posting # 2157
23 January 2020 Posting # 374

That still does not address the question.

It does. Your hurt feelings are an impediment to your acceptance of the facts.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Your Question: "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"

BLUF: If YOU study The Theory of Reasoning, ultimately you see that it is just a means of justifying some thought, or system of ideas intended to explain something YOU consider both sound and valid. When a pro-Arab Palestinian attempts to apply logic and reason to their political position, they form their arguments to be either convincing OR more often to reinforce the belief that their audience already holds. But as the noted Doctoral Candidate Steve Rathje wrote in Psychology Today, "it does not make us particularly good at truth-seeking." Most pro-Arab Palestinians have a tendency to cherry-pick research that appears to support what other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe. Being both sound and valid takes a backseat to actually being a truthful representation of the situation.

That still does not address the question.

(COMMENT)

So here, no matter what evidentiary information is presented, if it doesn't appear to support what YOU (contradictory to your position) and other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe → it is rejected. And that is the fallacy YOU are driving home. In general, the pro-Arab Palestinian only accepts that which is clear and incontrovertibly supports what they believe should true.

You ask the question: "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"

◈ I respond with the legal documentation which is a matter of record. (The Treaties.)​

​

◈ I respond with the civil and political right under which the action was taken. (Self-Determination and the Actual effective or sovereign control.)​

​

◈ I respond with the International legal basis (The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)​

​

You respond with, "it doesn't answer the question." But instead of critiquing the content or challenging the validity, you ignore the reality behind the answers given. That in itself is a fallacy and an error in critical thinking. So, I plead, what specifically do you want - any more than what you already have?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Your Question: "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"

BLUF: If YOU study The Theory of Reasoning, ultimately you see that it is just a means of justifying some thought, or system of ideas intended to explain something YOU consider both sound and valid. When a pro-Arab Palestinian attempts to apply logic and reason to their political position, they form their arguments to be either convincing OR more often to reinforce the belief that their audience already holds. But as the noted Doctoral Candidate Steve Rathje wrote in Psychology Today, "it does not make us particularly good at truth-seeking." Most pro-Arab Palestinians have a tendency to cherry-pick research that appears to support what other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe. Being both sound and valid takes a backseat to actually being a truthful representation of the situation.

That still does not address the question.

(COMMENT)

So here, no matter what evidentiary information is presented, if it doesn't appear to support what YOU (contradictory to your position) and other pro-Arab Palestinians already believe → it is rejected. And that is the fallacy YOU are driving home. In general, the pro-Arab Palestinian only accepts that which is clear and incontrovertibly supports what they believe should true.

You ask the question: "how Israel can claim borders on territory that the UN, the Palestinians, and others call Palestine"

◈ I respond with the legal documentation which is a matter of record. (The Treaties.)​

​

◈ I respond with the civil and political right under which the action was taken. (Self-Determination and the Actual effective or sovereign control.)​

​

◈ I respond with the International legal basis (The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)​

​

You respond with, "it doesn't answer the question." But instead of critiquing the content or challenging the validity, you ignore the reality behind the answers given. That in itself is a fallacy and an error in critical thinking. So, I plead, what specifically do you want - any more than what you already have?


Most Respectfully,
R

Perhaps I should make my question more clear.

Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. That defined territory was transferred to Palestine by the Treaty of Lausanne.

What treaty transferred a defined territory to Israel? What are the borders of that defined territory?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I know of NO treaty which mentions Palestine in any post-War of the 20th Century.

Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. That defined territory was transferred to Palestine by the Treaty of Lausanne.

(COMMENT)

I know of no post-War in the 20th Century that establishes the State of Palestine.

The Government of Palestine was established under the authority of the Allied Powers.

The Allied Powers received their authority from Article 16 to the Territory Clause, Treaty of Lausanne.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. ​

​

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. ​

What treaty transferred a defined territory to Israel?

(COMMENT)

The orginal establishment of Israel was under the Right of Self-Determination thru the National Council for the Jewish State.

Pursuant to the Lausanne, the UN • Trustee System and offer under A/RES/181 (II) Partitioned the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.

The UN was the lead on getting the necessarly self-governing institutions in place and recognized internationally.

What are the borders of that defined territory?

(COMMENT)

The initial borders where that which were recommended by the UN Special Committee for Palestine. However, within hours of the announced Independence, the Arab League intitated an International Armed Conflict. By the time of the Cessation of Hostilities, the various Armitice Agreements set in place lines underwhich the State of Israel established control all along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area now silent. These Armistice Agreements were to remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.
They are:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •​

​

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law •​

​

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now. No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events.

(∑ Ω)

We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty...

The rights and title were transferred to the new states not to the Allied Powers or the Mandates.

 

[Hollie]

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty...

The rights and title were transferred to the new states not to the Allied Powers or the Mandates.

What new states?

link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: I know of NO treaty which mentions Palestine in any post-War of the 20th Century.

Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. That defined territory was transferred to Palestine by the Treaty of Lausanne.

(COMMENT)

I know of no post-War in the 20th Century that establishes the State of Palestine.

The Government of Palestine was established under the authority of the Allied Powers.

The Allied Powers received their authority from Article 16 to the Territory Clause, Treaty of Lausanne.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. ​

​

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. ​

What treaty transferred a defined territory to Israel?

(COMMENT)

The orginal establishment of Israel was under the Right of Self-Determination thru the National Council for the Jewish State.

Pursuant to the Lausanne, the UN • Trustee System and offer under A/RES/181 (II) Partitioned the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.

The UN was the lead on getting the necessarly self-governing institutions in place and recognized internationally.

What are the borders of that defined territory?

(COMMENT)

The initial borders where that which were recommended by the UN Special Committee for Palestine. However, within hours of the announced Independence, the Arab League intitated an International Armed Conflict. By the time of the Cessation of Hostilities, the various Armitice Agreements set in place lines underwhich the State of Israel established control all along the Forward Edge of the Battle Area now silent. These Armistice Agreements were to remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.
They are:

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •​

​

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law •​

​

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

All of these instruments pertain to what is relevant now. No matter what your interpretation of the Armistice agreements may be, they have all been overtaken by events.

(∑ Ω)

We are now in the 21st Century and we need to solve the problems of today (forget yester-year).


Most Respectfully,
R

The orginal establishment of Israel was under the Right of Self-Determination thru the National Council for the Jewish State.

You are deflecting again.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Hollie's question points directly at your misunderstanding.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty...

The rights and title were transferred to the new states not to the Allied Powers or the Mandates.

What new states?

link?

(COMMENT)

Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "the future of these territories" and "to be settled by the parties concerned."

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to any of the proceedings.

(∑ Ω)

You are deflecting again.

Again, no one is deflecting anything. That dog won't hunt... It is not a rebuttal.

As a deep political opinion, no matter how you look at it, the Arab intervention in 1948 and the subsequent decisions the Arabs League made, applily demonstrated the potential for a future the Arab Palestinians had if under Arab Rule. If we were just talking about a comparison between Israel and the Arab Partitian, your arguement that Israel held the Arab Palestinians down might have merit. But if you expand the compaison to Israel versus the enitie Middle East, you will see that it was the Arab League influence that was deficient. Israel had a greater outcome in Human Development than any other country in the Middle East and states of the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. AND if you look at what the Arab Palestinians could have had in 1948 without the conflict in comparison to what the outcome is today, you have to agree, the Arab Palestinians would have been much better off without the intervention.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "the future of these territories" and "to be settled by the parties concerned."

And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."

And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: The Treaty of Lausanne covers more than just the Region of Palestine. It covers the entirety of the Ottoman Empire (Less The Turkish Republic). That included what we call today, Bosnia, Albania Serbia, Romanian, Saudi Arabia, etc... When the Allied Powers signed the Treaty, it was exclusively pertaining to Palestine. In fact, the Region of Palestine was not even a political subdivision.

Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "the future of these territories" and "to be settled by the parties concerned."

And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."

And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?

(COMMENT)

Article 30 covered the change in Nationalities for the residents, not territorial distribution. Iraqis would be Iraqis, Saudis would be Saudis, Kuwaitis would be Kuwaitis, The people of the Hejaz would be Saudis, etc, etc, etc. From the borders of the former Austo-Hungrain Empire to the borders of the form Russian Empire and the Persian Empire. It did not cover the territorial break-up --- it just made sure that whatever the breakup looked like post-War, the residents would have the associated nationality.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "the future of these territories" and "to be settled by the parties concerned."

And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."

And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not contain the phrase ''new states''.

You are deflecting again.

You are again attempting to reinvent, rewrite history. That's dishonest.

What new states?

Link ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "the future of these territories" and "to be settled by the parties concerned."

And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."

And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not contain the phrase ''new states''.

You are deflecting again.

You are again attempting to reinvent, rewrite history. That's dishonest.

What new states?

Link ?

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​

What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?

 

[P F Tinmore]