Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: No Premisie at all. One of the "KEY REFERENCES" was Empirical Evidence:

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​

[/QUOTE]

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."

Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
But keep dancing.

(COMMENT)

SECTION I
――――
TERRITORIAL CLAUSES
――――​

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

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 recognized 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.​

​

The "parties" (ie concerned parties) to this treaty were outlined in Part 1, Article 1, of the Political Clauses.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Keeping in mind these timelines and these two KEY References:

◈ Paris Peace Conference (Principal Allied and Associated Powers) Treaty of The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919​

◈ The Covenant of the League of Nations was actually Part I in the Treaty of Versailles. (Effective January 1920)​

◈ Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​

◈ Final Amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations adopted (December 1924)​

​

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."

Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
But keep dancing.

(QUESTION)

Just for the sake of an argument: Suppose the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in general (1919), and the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers (1920), had decided to exercise annexation authority →

Q: What would have prevented them from doing so?​

If the Supreme Council had decided early on that they would establish Mandate Territories as "official colonies" what would have prevented them from doing so? After all, nothing in any of the KEY References Though most Mandates defined a distinction between a Mandate Territory and a Colony as it is... They were the authors of their own international instruments. And remember, the Allied Powers were still writing amendments to the League of Nations Covenant in December 1924. If they wanted, they could have altered it at any time. The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers simply chose not to alter the Covenant, but to make it flexible in its application. But even as it is:

Q: What would have prevented the Mandatory Powers from turning the Mandate Territories into colonies extending their sovereignty over them?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oppression and Resistance: Palestine Fights for Liberation

 

[Hollie]

Oppression and Resistance: Palestine Fights for Liberation

liberation? The Hamas Charter calls for elimination of Israel.

Why is it up to me to teach you your koran’ology, Islamic history and Hamas Charters?

https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oppression and Resistance: Palestine Fights for Liberation

liberation? The Hamas Charter calls for elimination of Israel.

Why is it up to me to teach you your koran’ology, Islamic history and Hamas Charters?

https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul

Ahhh, the Hamas lady posts again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: No Premisie at all. One of the "KEY REFERENCES" was Empirical Evidence:

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."

Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
But keep dancing.

(COMMENT)

SECTION I
――――
TERRITORIAL CLAUSES
――――​

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

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 recognized 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.​

​

The "parties" (ie concerned parties) to this treaty were outlined in Part 1, Article 1, of the Political Clauses.

Most Respectfully,
R
[/QUOTE]

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: No Premisie at all. One of the "KEY REFERENCES" was Empirical Evidence:

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."

Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.
But keep dancing.

(COMMENT)

SECTION I
――――
TERRITORIAL CLAUSES
――――​

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

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 recognized 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.​

​

The "parties" (ie concerned parties) to this treaty were outlined in Part 1, Article 1, of the Political Clauses.

Most Respectfully,
R

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.
[/QUOTE]
What new states? You have ducked, dodged and avoided that question?

What
new
states?

The
one
you
have
invented
but
has
never
existed?

Link?

 

[toastman]

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

BLUF: And again, I don't think you can find such an example where I "start dancing." My answers have been consistently the same and revolve around the victor's intent for the post-War.

◈ Paris Peace Conference (1919)​

◈ Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920)​

◈ Section VII, Treaty of Sevres and Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)​

◈ Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention (Dec 1920)​

◈ Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (October 1921)​

◈ Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923)​

These six references are the "KEY" means of evidence. I have presented them in this form many, many times. I can only assume that you are have intellectual problems in stringing the datum together.

The pro-Palestinian generally agree that the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River is rightly Palestine. And because they (the pro-Palestinians) generally agree to this, it must be true under the Consensus Theory of Truth.

And whenever I ask you to show any evidence that this is not true you start dancing.

(COMMENT)

At the end of the day, Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne (1923), show the intent and the acknowledgment wherein the Defeated (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounces all rights and title to the territory and recognizes the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. In this case, the "parties concerned" are identified in the preamble. As you can see the Arab Palestinians or any other entity representing the Arab Palestinians are not included in the "parties to the treaty."

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."

All six KEY documents show that there was a consistent intent on the part of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers to further the Mandate (which they authored. Nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians and the Allied Powers had no specific obligation to the Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant was a set of agreements between the members of the league; not between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.

As previously discussed, the obligation to provide "tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations" was rejected several times by the Allied Powers. Thus negating any implication of a further obligation.

Again, all of this has been explained several times. There has been no dancing around the central issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is absolutely no need to dance around the issue. The "victors" of the war assumed the "rights and title."

Your clunker for the day. The Allied Powers had a no annexation policy over the new states. You base your conclusions on false premise.

But keep dancing.

All Rocco does is post facts with links. All you do is post videos and make the same bullshit claims.
Who’s really dancing ??


Hint: It’s you...

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.

(COMMENT)

​

A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement; "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;" Article 2, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

​

​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455 ​

Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​

​

​

The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine. Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty. I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses). Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.

The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the UN International Trusteeship System according to the Charter (Article 77).

If you revied the UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012, you will discover that:

READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly. Digest it all before going further.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.

(COMMENT)

​

A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement; "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;" Article 2, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

​

View attachment 435109​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455 ​

Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​

​

​

The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine. Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty. I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses). Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.

The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the UN International Trusteeship System according to the Charter (Article 77).

If you revied the UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012, you will discover that:

View attachment 435115​

READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly. Digest it all before going further.

Most Respectfully,
R

Recognition by the UN does not create a state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.

(COMMENT)

​

A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement; "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;" Article 2, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

​

View attachment 435109​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455 ​

Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​

​

​

The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine. Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty. I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses). Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.

The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the UN International Trusteeship System according to the Charter (Article 77).

If you revied the UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012, you will discover that:

View attachment 435115​

READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly. Digest it all before going further.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states?

You are ducking my question.

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: That would be 100% Wrong. Your argument is flawed on several levels.

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You always assume that the allied powers are the parties concerned. The allied parties did not annex the territories. They had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states? That would make more sense.

(COMMENT)

​

A Treaty is a specialty kind of contractual agreement; "concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;" Article 2, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

​

View attachment 435109​

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law p455 ​

Rev. ed. of: 2nd ed. 2004. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7​

​

​

The Government of Palestine was not a sovereign state to the Arabs of Palestine. Nor was Palestine a new state at the conclusion of hostilities and the implementation of the Treaty. I know that a number of different people have put forth a similar argument → trying to use Article 30 (Nationality Clauses) of the Treaty of Lausanne to overwrite Article 16 (Territorial Clauses). Palestine was a "legal entity" until 2012.

The incorporated portion of the remaining Territory formerly under the Mandate was picked up by the UN International Trusteeship System according to the Charter (Article 77).

If you revied the UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Memorandum 11 December 2012, you will discover that:

View attachment 435115​

READ PARAGRAPH 1 Closely and slowly. Digest it all before going further.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wouldn't the parties concerned be the citizens of their new states?

You are ducking my question.

New states?

What was that about ducking?

What new states?

link?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: You are absolutely correct. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

◈ A Permanent Population​

​

◈ A Defined Territory​

​

◈ A Government​

​

◈ The capacity for Diplomacy​

Recognition by the UN does not create a state.

(COMMENT)

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.

✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.​

​

✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: You are absolutely correct. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

◈ A Permanent Population​

​

◈ A Defined Territory​

​

◈ A Government​

​

◈ The capacity for Diplomacy​

Recognition by the UN does not create a state.

(COMMENT)

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.

✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.​

​

✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.​

Most Respectfully,
R

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.

✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.

Interesting opinion.

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: You are absolutely correct. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

◈ A Permanent Population​

​

◈ A Defined Territory​

​

◈ A Government​

​

◈ The capacity for Diplomacy​

Recognition by the UN does not create a state.

(COMMENT)

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.

✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.​

​

✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.​

Most Respectfully,
R

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.

✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.

Interesting opinion.

About those new states.

Anything?

Are you wearing your dancing shoes?

What new states?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

I didn't see anything in the YouTube video about those new states you referred to.

Just the name of one of those new states would be helpful.

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: After December 2012, things get blurry...

When examined, the territory in question was looked at internationally as an entity.
✦ Palestine was not identified as a state December 2012.✦ Palestine did not have an identifiable government.

Interesting opinion.

(COMMENT)

I actually do not see a difference between the status of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1995 (establishment of Areas "A" • "B" • "C").

Yes, the Gaza Strip was abandoned (2005) by the Israelis. That was not much different from when Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem. The KEY there was that Israel allowed the sovereignty to be established by the Gazans by default. Just as Jordan left the Israelis to govern by default.

So, I'm assuming that the view of the court will be consistent with the need to determine:

If there is a functioning government?

What territory does the State of Palestine (Ramallah Government + Gaza Government) hold such control (governmental power over and above) that no other external government can control?

Remembering that the West Bank and Jerusalem were taken from the Jordanians and NOT from the Arabs of the West Bank and Jerusalem. So the issue of Israel taking control is really not subject to dispute or debate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

"It Is Called Apartheid" - Rep. Betty McCollum Speech at USCPR National Conference

 

[P F Tinmore]

What territory does the State of Palestine (Ramallah Government + Gaza Government) hold such control (governmental power over and above) that no other external government can control?

They don't. It's called military occupation.