Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is such an invalid question.

is a permanent international boundary subject to change --- ONLY with the Aarab Palestinian approval.

Where does it say it is not?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, he is right. International boundaries can and do change with mutual agreement between Parties. So, effectively, the boundaries can only change with Arab Palestinian approval AND Israeli approval. That is what the peace process is.

Indeed.

 

[Shusha]

There is no border between Israel and Palestine. There is no dispute.

There is most certainly a conflict. Two peoples vying for self-determination and sovereignty. The solution, in every other case in recent history, is a partition with each peoples getting part of the territory.

But the Arab Palestinians refuse to accept that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is such an invalid question.

is a permanent international boundary subject to change --- ONLY with the Aarab Palestinian approval.

Where does it say it is not?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice changed no borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no border between Israel and Palestine. There is no dispute.

There is most certainly a conflict. Two peoples vying for self-determination and sovereignty. The solution, in every other case in recent history, is a partition with each peoples getting part of the territory.

But the Arab Palestinians refuse to accept that.

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Lines are historical references; nothing more.

Once the Permanent Treaties are resolved and placed into effect, the Armistice Agreements desolve and are no longer an active or restrictive document.

So then, why does every map of Israel have defunct armistice lines?

(COMMENT)

But the Armistice ended on the engagement of the Peace Treaties. With the end of the Armistice, so went the Armistice Lines.

Most Resepctfully,
R

That ducks my question.

 

[Shusha]

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

I disagree. And so do you.

Peoples have a right to self-determination and sovereignty over territory. You are constantly arguing that. Remember? Inviolable human right. Remember?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

I disagree. And so do you.

Peoples have a right to self-determination and sovereignty over territory. You are constantly arguing that. Remember? Inviolable human right. Remember?

The UN reaffirms the Palestinians sovereign rights over their territory.

I don't recall seeing anything similar for the Israelis.

 

[Slyhunter]

bullshit.

So, where is the dispute?

Israel disputes where the borders lie with Palestine.

Palestine has borders. Israel doesn't. What is the dispute?

The border between Israel and palestine is at dispute.

There is no border between Israel and Palestine. There is no dispute.

You're nuts.

 

[USAF 2023]

There is no border between Israel and Palestine. There is no dispute.

There is most certainly a conflict. Two peoples vying for self-determination and sovereignty. The solution, in every other case in recent history, is a partition with each peoples getting part of the territory.

But the Arab Palestinians refuse to accept that.

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

There is no requirement for Israel to accept Borders that were never accepted before or give up their religious Sites

 

[Shusha]

The UN reaffirms the Palestinians sovereign rights over their territory.

I don't recall seeing anything similar for the Israelis.

Your memory is poor. The predecessor to the UN confirmed the Jewish peoples absolute right to sovereignty over their ancestral territory by virtue of their historical claim.

Inviolable rights. Remember?

 

[USAF 2023]

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

I disagree. And so do you.

Peoples have a right to self-determination and sovereignty over territory. You are constantly arguing that. Remember? Inviolable human right. Remember?

The UN reaffirms the Palestinians sovereign rights over their territory.

I don't recall seeing anything similar for the Israelis.

The U.N. doesn’t affirm Israeli Sovereign Rights over their territory? Like I have said before; “ International Law” is a joke

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

Look. Bottom line. Been going on for nearly 100 years.

Arabs have every right to their own self-determination and sovereignty. They have absolutely no right to deny it to the indigenous Jewish peoples.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your just trying to confuse the issue. I never said that Armistice Lines set borders, in fact, I consistently said the opposite.

The armistice changed no borders.

(COMMENT)

But what does set the borders are the Peace Treaties. And if the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the Armistice Agreement, then they were not a party to the Peace Treaty that match the Armistice Agreement.

AND, as a matter of fact, if you are a West Bank Palestinian, or anGazaStrip Palestinian, then neither the Armistice Lines, and the boundaries to the territory formerly subject to the Mandate, then All you should be concerned with today, are the existing treaties and any newly negotiated agreements.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Too funny.

There is no border between Israel and Palestine. There is no dispute.

There is most certainly a conflict. Two peoples vying for self-determination and sovereignty. The solution, in every other case in recent history, is a partition with each peoples getting part of the territory.

But the Arab Palestinians refuse to accept that.

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinians do not come to the table and negotiate the issues subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords), then the status quo will probably be just fine with the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, you just did not read the answer.

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Lines are historical references; nothing more.

Once the Permanent Treaties are resolved and placed into effect, the Armistice Agreements dissolve and are no longer an active or restrictive document.

So then, why does every map of Israel have defunct armistice lines?

(COMMENT) → one more time!

But the Armistice ended on the engagement of the Peace Treaties. With the end of the Armistice, so went the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully,
R

That ducks my question.

(COMMENT)

Armistice Lines (around the Gaza Strip and West Bank) are just for historical recreference.

Most maps don't have the Armistice Lines. They show the current lines of control and sovereignty that look similar to Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we go again.

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

I disagree. And so do you.

Peoples have a right to self-determination and sovereignty over territory. You are constantly arguing that. Remember? Inviolable human right. Remember?

The UN reaffirms the Palestinians sovereign rights over their territory.

I don't recall seeing anything similar for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other State. Everyone, including the Arab Palestinians, understands were the territorial control (territoial sovereignty to the exclusion of any other) of Israel is maintained.

THE QUESTION IS: Where are the boundaries of Palestinian exclusive territorial control? That would be the important piece of ground to the State of Palestine...

NOTE:

And don't come back with that lame response that sovereignty belongs to the people. Clearly that is not the case in many nations, to include a couple of Arab League States.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your just trying to confuse the issue. I never said that Armistice Lines set borders, in fact, I consistently said the opposite.

The armistice changed no borders.

(COMMENT)

But what does set the borders are the Peace Treaties. And if the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the Armistice Agreement, then they were not a party to the Peace Treaty that match the Armistice Agreement.

AND, as a matter of fact, if you are a West Bank Palestinian, or anGazaStrip Palestinian, then neither the Armistice Lines, and the boundaries to the territory formerly subject to the Mandate, then All you should be concerned with today, are the existing treaties and any newly negotiated agreements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why? There have been no treaties changing Palestine's international borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Too funny.

There is no border between Israel and Palestine. There is no dispute.

There is most certainly a conflict. Two peoples vying for self-determination and sovereignty. The solution, in every other case in recent history, is a partition with each peoples getting part of the territory.

But the Arab Palestinians refuse to accept that.

There is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinians do not come to the table and negotiate the issues subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations (Oslo Accords), then the status quo will probably be just fine with the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still there is no requirement for Palestine to change or negotiate its borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, you just did not read the answer.

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Lines are historical references; nothing more.

Once the Permanent Treaties are resolved and placed into effect, the Armistice Agreements dissolve and are no longer an active or restrictive document.

So then, why does every map of Israel have defunct armistice lines?

(COMMENT) → one more time!

But the Armistice ended on the engagement of the Peace Treaties. With the end of the Armistice, so went the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully,
R

That ducks my question.

(COMMENT)

Armistice Lines (around the Gaza Strip and West Bank) are just for historical recreference.

Most maps don't have the Armistice Lines. They show the current lines of control and sovereignty that look similar to Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, they separate 1948 occupied Palestine from 1967 occupied Palestine.