Palestinians want more then the " 67 borders"

[High_Gravity]

I know that Jews cannot live in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That's for sure.

Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen etc etc its all the same story.

Yet all nationalities and all religions are welcome to live in Israel.

Israel is just better than all the Arabs countried combined.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why don't the Palestinians just be honest? they don't want peace, they don't want to co exist with the Israelis, they want all the land, they want an Islamic state and they want all the Jews dead. Just say it, you'll feel better.

 

[Phoenall]

The word "control" is regularly used in reference to Palestine. Control denotes occupation not possession.

Britain controlled Palestine but Palestine never became British territory.

Why do you make up this crap when Rocco has explained it to you so many times?? Give it up already!

Rocco used the term control.

Perhaps you should ask him what he meant by that.

Control as in GOVERN

 

[Phoenall]

The word "control" is regularly used in reference to Palestine. Control denotes occupation not possession.

Britain controlled Palestine but Palestine never became British territory.

YES IT DID and this is shown in the fact the passports issued all bore the title British Subject. So how could Britain issue passports for a territory it had no governance over.

You really do shoot yourself in the foot sometimes when you don't think about your posts clearly enough. Under the mandate of Palestine Britain took on the administrative and legal government of the land of Palestine ( including trans Jordan ) until it relinquished this control to the UN in may 1948.

There is that "control" word again. You keep confusing control with possession.

Palestine never became British territory.

Care to prove this using the mandate of Palestine ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK explain!

The word "control" is regularly used in reference to Palestine. Control denotes occupation not possession.

Britain controlled Palestine but Palestine never became British territory.

YES IT DID and this is shown in the fact the passports issued all bore the title British Subject. So how could Britain issue passports for a territory it had no governance over.

You really do shoot yourself in the foot sometimes when you don't think about your posts clearly enough. Under the mandate of Palestine Britain took on the administrative and legal government of the land of Palestine ( including trans Jordan ) until it relinquished this control to the UN in may 1948.

There is that "control" word again. You keep confusing control with possession.

Palestine never became British territory.

(COMMENT)

You keep using the word "possession." What is your point? State it clearly.

That is correct, there was no colonial attempt of the region; either under the French Mandate or the British Mandate. At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, it was decided that the mandates system, outlined in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant, was to be applied to several non-Turkish portions of the Ottoman Empire; including a set of regional territories which also contained the undefined Palestine.

The following treaties were prepared at the Paris Peace Conference:

• Weimar Republic of Germany (Treaty of Versailles, 1919, June 28, 1919),
• Austria (Treaty of Saint-Germain, September 10, 1919),
• Bulgaria (Treaty of Neuilly, November 27, 1919),
• Hungary (Treaty of Trianon, June 4, 1920), and the
• The Ottoman Empire (Treaty of Sèvres, August 10, 1920; subsequently revised by the Treaty of Lausanne, July 24, 1923).
• Also considered was the "holy grail" of Palestine, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (January 3, 1919).

SOURCE: New World Encyclopedia

There were several territories that were recognized as having the potential (peoples not yet able to stand by themselves) for independence; Syria and Lebanon (in the French Mandate) --- Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq (in the British Mandate). They were each provisionally recognized as independent under individual Type "A" Mandates; tailored for each. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, The Mandatory had been afforded the full powers of legislation (ability to make laws) and of administration (all governmental infrastructure) under Article 1.

Be specific... Which aspect of "control" is the focus of your complaint, allegation or claim. I can't discuss what I can't understand.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK explain!

YES IT DID and this is shown in the fact the passports issued all bore the title British Subject. So how could Britain issue passports for a territory it had no governance over.

You really do shoot yourself in the foot sometimes when you don't think about your posts clearly enough. Under the mandate of Palestine Britain took on the administrative and legal government of the land of Palestine ( including trans Jordan ) until it relinquished this control to the UN in may 1948.

There is that "control" word again. You keep confusing control with possession.

Palestine never became British territory.

(COMMENT)

You keep using the word "possession." What is your point? State it clearly.

That is correct, there was no colonial attempt of the region; either under the French Mandate or the British Mandate. At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, it was decided that the mandates system, outlined in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant, was to be applied to several non-Turkish portions of the Ottoman Empire; including a set of regional territories which also contained the undefined Palestine.

The following treaties were prepared at the Paris Peace Conference:

• Weimar Republic of Germany (Treaty of Versailles, 1919, June 28, 1919),
• Austria (Treaty of Saint-Germain, September 10, 1919),
• Bulgaria (Treaty of Neuilly, November 27, 1919),
• Hungary (Treaty of Trianon, June 4, 1920), and the
• The Ottoman Empire (Treaty of Sèvres, August 10, 1920; subsequently revised by the Treaty of Lausanne, July 24, 1923).
• Also considered was the "holy grail" of Palestine, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (January 3, 1919).

SOURCE: New World Encyclopedia

There were several territories that were recognized as having the potential (peoples not yet able to stand by themselves) for independence; Syria and Lebanon (in the French Mandate) --- Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq (in the British Mandate). They were each provisionally recognized as independent under individual Type "A" Mandates; tailored for each. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, The Mandatory had been afforded the full powers of legislation (ability to make laws) and of administration (all governmental infrastructure) under Article 1.

Be specific... Which aspect of "control" is the focus of your complaint, allegation or claim. I can't discuss what I can't understand.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of control. When people see that someone controls a territory they think it means that it is their territory.

People believe that the mandate was Palestine (being owned by Britain) and when the mandate ended there was no more Palestine.

Thank you for clarifying the point that the mandates (British or French) never claimed any territory of the mandates.

 

[toastman]

Why is it that the territory HAD to belong to someone Tinmore?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Why don't the Palestinians just be honest? they don't want peace, they don't want to co exist with the Israelis, they want all the land, they want an Islamic state and they want all the Jews dead. Just say it, you'll feel better.

The moron below, Abbas Zaki, says it right here. He says a lot of things about the Jews and Israel if you Youtube search for his videos.

 

[Billo_Really]

That and 13 million dead Jews.

Who were not killed by Palestinian's.

 

[Billo_Really]

And all legal under the Geneva conventions which you have been shown. Are you that pig headed that you don't want to abide by INTERNATIONAL LAW

Just what part of the GC or IHL legalizes the occupation and blockade of Gaza?

I'm willing to bet the farm you can't answer that question.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

And all legal under the Geneva conventions which you have been shown. Are you that pig headed that you don't want to abide by INTERNATIONAL LAW

Just what part of the GC or IHL legalizes the occupation and blockade of Gaza?

I'm willing to bet the farm you can't answer that question.

Seven years after Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip, several things have changed both at the political and the economic level, Hamas official Mahmoud Zahhar said Friday.
Speaking to Ma’an, Zahhar asserted that “Gaza is free of occupation, and contiguity with the outside world is easier as visitors from all over the world visited the coastal enclave.”
Zahhar: Gaza more secure than West Bank | Maan News Agency


UN Palmer Report
In regards to the Gaza blockade, the commission writes:
"Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza...The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, one of the principle purposes of the Mandate System (League of Nations) and the International Trusteeship System (UN Charter), is to set the condition and the environment such that a progressive development towards self-government or independence can be achieved. It is definitely not an end run around the abolishment of colonial policy.

There is a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of control. When people see that someone controls a territory they think it means that it is their territory.

People believe that the mandate was Palestine (being owned by Britain) and when the mandate ended there was no more Palestine.

Thank you for clarifying the point that the mandates (British or French) never claimed any territory of the mandates.

(COMMENT)

Mandates (Types "A" "B" and "C"), as well as Trusteeships have varying degrees of control; and with that control --- comes responsibility.

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

Both Mandates (of old) and International Trusteeships (Chapter XIIs of which there are none today), have differing degrees of problems and complexities. Nearly half of the territories under protectorate status demanded sovereignty before they are ready and become either troubled or failed states. And the states in North Africa and Middle East have had their fair share of difficulties. Even today, most of the troubled states were once Mandates: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen; and, of course, the State of Palestine. It hasn't been all that long since Lebanon put-up its guns and reached a calmer state - yet a quarter of it is still terrorist controlled.

Oddly enough, the two most stable countries are Israel and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Rocco, when you say the two most stable countries, you are obviously talking about the Middle East, right?
Can you post the link you use that lists the most stable countries?

 

[Phoenall]

That and 13 million dead Jews.

Who were not killed by Palestinian's.

Many were, in fact in 1948/1949 10 % of the Jews in Palestine were murdered by palestinians

 

[Billo_Really]

Seven years after Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip, several things have changed both at the political and the economic level, Hamas official Mahmoud Zahhar said Friday.
Speaking to Ma’an, Zahhar asserted that “Gaza is free of occupation, and contiguity with the outside world is easier as visitors from all over the world visited the coastal enclave.”
Zahhar: Gaza more secure than West Bank | Maan News Agency

I love how you take Hamas statements as truth, when they fit your agenda, but completely and automatically dismiss them, when they don't.

When Hamas say's they're willing to accept a two-state solution, you'd rather go back 40 years to some archaic transcribe in their charter.

UN Palmer Report
In regards to the Gaza blockade, the commission writes:
"Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza...The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."

This is the second time I'm having to tell you this, but the Palmer Commission's purpose was never intended to determine the legality of the blockade. Their only purpose, was to mend relations between Israel and Turkey.

Another UN commission, which "was" to determine the legality of the blockade, found it illegal under international law.

 

[Billo_Really]

Many were, in fact in 1948/1949 10 % of the Jews in Palestine were murdered by palestinians

Correction: 10% of jewish insurgents were killed attacking peaceful Palestinian farmers.

 

[toastman]

Billo, then why has t Hamas removed that from their charter??

And stop lying about Hamas, they have consistently said they are against a treaty and that they are only interested in 'liberating' all the land from the river to the sea.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, one of the principle purposes of the Mandate System (League of Nations) and the International Trusteeship System (UN Charter), is to set the condition and the environment such that a progressive development towards self-government or independence can be achieved. It is definitely not an end run around the abolishment of colonial policy.

There is a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of control. When people see that someone controls a territory they think it means that it is their territory.

People believe that the mandate was Palestine (being owned by Britain) and when the mandate ended there was no more Palestine.

Thank you for clarifying the point that the mandates (British or French) never claimed any territory of the mandates.

(COMMENT)

Mandates (Types "A" "B" and "C"), as well as Trusteeships have varying degrees of control; and with that control --- comes responsibility.

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

Both Mandates (of old) and International Trusteeships (Chapter XIIs of which there are none today), have differing degrees of problems and complexities. Nearly half of the territories under protectorate status demanded sovereignty before they are ready and become either troubled or failed states. And the states in North Africa and Middle East have had their fair share of difficulties. Even today, most of the troubled states were once Mandates: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen; and, of course, the State of Palestine. It hasn't been all that long since Lebanon put-up its guns and reached a calmer state - yet a quarter of it is still terrorist controlled.

Oddly enough, the two most stable countries are Israel and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

 

[Phoenall]

And all legal under the Geneva conventions which you have been shown. Are you that pig headed that you don't want to abide by INTERNATIONAL LAW

Just what part of the GC or IHL legalizes the occupation and blockade of Gaza?

I'm willing to bet the farm you can't answer that question.

You just lost the farm as the LAW is clear on illegal gun running and terrorist activity. Any such will be met with force and if necessary blockades and sanctions.

Now since when has gaza been occupied as in August 2005 Israel complied with the first part of Oslo and withdrew all Israelis from gaza. Not one Israeli soldier is occupying gaza and the hamas leaders have said this time after time.

Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approximately one year after the event, the UN investigative committee for the 2010 Flotilla to Gaza concluded that (1) the blockade is legal, (2) Israel was "justified in stopping vessels even outside its territorial waters," (3) Israel's decision to board the vessels with such force was "excessive," (4) Israeli forces "faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers" that required them to use force for their own protection, and (5) the loss of nine lives was "unacceptable

Some, such as law experts Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, Chicago Law School Professor Eric Posner, and Johns Hopkins International Law and Diplomacy Professor Ruth Wedgwood, said that the naval blockade, the boarding in international waters, and the use of force were in accord with long-standing international law.[7][8][9] Dershowitz compared the blockade with the U.S. blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Posner with the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War

Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote that the legality of blockades as a response to acts of war “is not subject to serious doubt.”[7] He likened Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza to U.S. naval actions in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the U.S. had deemed lawful though not part of an armed conflict.[7]

Similarly, Allen Weiner, former U.S. State Department attorney and legal counselor at the American Embassy in The Hague, and now a Stanford Law School professor, said "the Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal".[27]

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to [Hamas]".[9]


Blockade in American Civil War


Cartoon map of Union blockade of Confederacy during U.S. Civil War
Eric Posner, international law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noting that the raid had "led to wild accusations of illegality", wrote that blockades are lawful during times of armed conflict (such as the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War), and that "war-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas".[8] He compared Israel's blockade to the Union blockade by the Union against the Confederacy (a non-state) during the U.S. Civil War.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the legitimacy of that blockade.[8]

Philip Roche, a partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with the London-headquartered international law firm Norton Rose, also said: "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza, and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal."[1] The basis for that is the law of blockade, derived from international law that was codified in the 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, and which was then updated in 1994 in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea--"a legally recognized document".[1] He addressed the charge by Human Rights Watch that the blockade of a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against civilians, ostensibly violating Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, by saying "This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanctions are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own."[8]

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic.[28] He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations.[28]


Oslo Accords 1993, hands shaking


Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony in 1993
He wrote:


Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.[28]

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.'"[2]

Abbas Al Lawati, a Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, opined that Israel is likely to cite the Gaza–Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza.[22] The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity.[29]

Professor Wedgwood opined that the goal of the flotilla was to: "denude Israel of what it thinks it was guaranteed in the 1993 Oslo Accords which preceded the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, which is the control of the external borders of Gaza and West Bank.... The problem ... is that you could easily have a rearming of Hamas, which caused a terrible conflict."[9]

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, one of the principle purposes of the Mandate System (League of Nations) and the International Trusteeship System (UN Charter), is to set the condition and the environment such that a progressive development towards self-government or independence can be achieved. It is definitely not an end run around the abolishment of colonial policy.

There is a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of control. When people see that someone controls a territory they think it means that it is their territory.

People believe that the mandate was Palestine (being owned by Britain) and when the mandate ended there was no more Palestine.

Thank you for clarifying the point that the mandates (British or French) never claimed any territory of the mandates.

(COMMENT)

Mandates (Types "A" "B" and "C"), as well as Trusteeships have varying degrees of control; and with that control --- comes responsibility.

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

Both Mandates (of old) and International Trusteeships (Chapter XIIs of which there are none today), have differing degrees of problems and complexities. Nearly half of the territories under protectorate status demanded sovereignty before they are ready and become either troubled or failed states. And the states in North Africa and Middle East have had their fair share of difficulties. Even today, most of the troubled states were once Mandates: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen; and, of course, the State of Palestine. It hasn't been all that long since Lebanon put-up its guns and reached a calmer state - yet a quarter of it is still terrorist controlled.

Oddly enough, the two most stable countries are Israel and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

Show me a map of their sovereign state that you are talking about Timmore. Show all of us