So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[Boston1]

Does forceably removing or deporting a population remove their right to be included in a population? No
Does it remove their identity? No
If, for example, we remove Palestinian Arabs from "Palestine" do they cease to be "Palestinians"? No
Does a group with a right to self-determination have the right to self-identify? Yes

Are these UNIVERSAL RIGHTS or do they apply only to some peoples?

Oh and thank you for the help with my spelling. Capitol and capital or words similarly pronounced are difficult for me.

Also the universal rights issue is interesting. It would seem to me that in times of war certain universal rights are replaced with the geneva conventions. If its not a war then we have criminal acts to consider. Does a criminal enjoy the same inalienable rights as a non criminal ?

 

[theliq]

descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.

First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of. I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly. Push people far enough and they might not exactly show remorse when a terrorist dies. Personally I think its all a tragedy.

I'd also add that if this youths household was summarily deported it would likely add significantly to the deterrent of restrictions.

And actually Israel has every right to deport people from its country. All countries exorcise this right. Your assumption that the area in question was "occupied" was nothing more than that. An assumption. One that also included the MYTH that Israel is occupying land. It isn't. Israel is doing exactly what was intended with that land in the Mandate. Setting up a Jewish national homeland. Thats not occupation, thats nation building.

You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said. And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.

descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.

First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of. I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly. Push people far enough and they might not exactly show remorse when a terrorist dies. Personally I think its all a tragedy.

I'd also add that if this youths household was summarily deported it would likely add significantly to the deterrent of restrictions.

And actually Israel has every right to deport people from its country. All countries exorcise this right. Your assumption that the area in question was "occupied" was nothing more than that. An assumption. One that also included the MYTH that Israel is occupying land. It isn't. Israel is doing exactly what was intended with that land in the Mandate. Setting up a Jewish national homeland. Thats not occupation, thats nation building.

You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said. And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.

The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.

Well if you delved into Jewish history you would be aware that Jews semenally decended from a mixture of Hittites and Arabs...they are not a Semitic people at all......the only Semitic people are the Palestinians...I trust the weather is fine in downtown Tele-Aviv ..Boston

LOL no, First Arab is a language group, not a culture, nationality or ethnicity. As far as the Judaic people being descendants of the hittites, as I recall this idea was first proposed in the 1930s and has never been confirmed and has little supporting evidence. The majority of evidence supports the Judaic people being descendant from the bronze age people known as the Hyksos.

And again with the mythos of palestinians, who you seem to insist are a distance genetic people. Or that seems to be your intent by questioning the origins of the Judaic people. Genetic studies show the palestinians being of general North African descent. A conglomeration of various tribal influences. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, published work ;--) I'd be happy to investigate it.

Best science thus far traces the judaic people back to the Hyksos, a primitive bronze age people living on the outskirts of other more powerful civilizations like the Egyptians of the time. Once again ref. Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bibble Unearthed" and no its not a secular work.

It looks like your argument is comprised of "the Judaic people didn't come from Judea and the various people who filtered into the area after the centuries long demise of the Judaic people are. Sorry but thats almost humorous. And not a shred of supporting data ?

Please lets keep the conversation to demonstrable realities. Wild to the point of comical claims do not advance our conversation or exchange of ideas.

Actually I'm right as usual,considering it was the Canaanites and Moabites that were the original peoples of the Holy Land....you know the peoples that the Jews eliminated to take their land(Sounds a familiar scenario,because that is what you have also been trying to do with the owners the Palestinians up until today)......To claim you are a pure race is putting it mildly...A JOKE......you are not in any way..but you know that already.....Trouble is you Zionists think your corrupt Mantra is fact.....It isn't even real Jews don't believe this errant nonsense......but sadly you do........so much for your Comical Stance.....Joker.....well you may be the Joker but we are not Village Idiots on here,something you should remember when on here.........you are yet another Right Wing Conservative Jew,not revered in Israel but loathed by secular and Ultra Jews...and we all can see why.

There are others on here who have taken us all down this crooked path,to no avail but with some what more interlect

 

[Billo_Really]

The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.

I live in Southern California where this conflict doesn't affect me in any way. What possible prejudice or bigotry would I have towards either side?

In respect for Teddy, I'm going to get back to the topic of the thread...

An occupying power cannot attain sovereignty over the territory it occupies. Therefore, the only solution to this conflict is for it to end.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are these UNIVERSAL RIGHTS or do they apply only to some peoples?

Of coarse they are universal rights. They apply to both Israeli's and Palestinian's, equally. That is why the Pals deserve their state too.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The speaker wishes to discuss the "intergenerational commitment of return (of Palestinians) to their homeland". Do you not see the irony of this? I mean the utter and complete and total irony?

​

No.

Maybe a little video will help.

Response here to stay on topic.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | Page 18 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?

 

[Boston1]

descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.

First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of. I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly. Push people far enough and they might not exactly show remorse when a terrorist dies. Personally I think its all a tragedy.

I'd also add that if this youths household was summarily deported it would likely add significantly to the deterrent of restrictions.

And actually Israel has every right to deport people from its country. All countries exorcise this right. Your assumption that the area in question was "occupied" was nothing more than that. An assumption. One that also included the MYTH that Israel is occupying land. It isn't. Israel is doing exactly what was intended with that land in the Mandate. Setting up a Jewish national homeland. Thats not occupation, thats nation building.

You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said. And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.

descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.

First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of. I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly. Push people far enough and they might not exactly show remorse when a terrorist dies. Personally I think its all a tragedy.

I'd also add that if this youths household was summarily deported it would likely add significantly to the deterrent of restrictions.

And actually Israel has every right to deport people from its country. All countries exorcise this right. Your assumption that the area in question was "occupied" was nothing more than that. An assumption. One that also included the MYTH that Israel is occupying land. It isn't. Israel is doing exactly what was intended with that land in the Mandate. Setting up a Jewish national homeland. Thats not occupation, thats nation building.

You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said. And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.

The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.

Well if you delved into Jewish history you would be aware that Jews semenally decended from a mixture of Hittites and Arabs...they are not a Semitic people at all......the only Semitic people are the Palestinians...I trust the weather is fine in downtown Tele-Aviv ..Boston

LOL no, First Arab is a language group, not a culture, nationality or ethnicity. As far as the Judaic people being descendants of the hittites, as I recall this idea was first proposed in the 1930s and has never been confirmed and has little supporting evidence. The majority of evidence supports the Judaic people being descendant from the bronze age people known as the Hyksos.

And again with the mythos of palestinians, who you seem to insist are a distance genetic people. Or that seems to be your intent by questioning the origins of the Judaic people. Genetic studies show the palestinians being of general North African descent. A conglomeration of various tribal influences. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, published work ;--) I'd be happy to investigate it.

Best science thus far traces the judaic people back to the Hyksos, a primitive bronze age people living on the outskirts of other more powerful civilizations like the Egyptians of the time. Once again ref. Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bibble Unearthed" and no its not a secular work.

It looks like your argument is comprised of "the Judaic people didn't come from Judea and the various people who filtered into the area after the centuries long demise of the Judaic people are. Sorry but thats almost humorous. And not a shred of supporting data ?

Please lets keep the conversation to demonstrable realities. Wild to the point of comical claims do not advance our conversation or exchange of ideas.

Actually I'm right as usual,considering it was the Canaanites and Moabites that were the original peoples of the Holy Land....you know the peoples that the Jews eliminated to take their land(Sounds a familiar scenario,because that is what you have also been trying to do with the owners the Palestinians up until today)......To claim you are a pure race is putting it mildly...A JOKE......you are not in any way..but you know that already.....Trouble is you Zionists think your corrupt Mantra is fact.....It isn't even real Jews don't believe this errant nonsense......but sadly you do........so much for your Comical Stance.....Joker.....well you may be the Joker but we are not Village Idiots on here,something you should remember when on here.........you are yet another Right Wing Conservative Jew,not revered in Israel but loathed by secular and Ultra Jews...and we all can see why.

There are others on here who have taken us all down this crooked path,to no avail but with some what more interlect

WOW you really might read up on modern archeology before making such claims. There was no ancient exodus from Egypt, There's not a shred of physical evidence to support the story and there was no conquest of the Canaan Valley, again not a shred of physical evidence exists to support that narrative either. Instead it looks far more likely that the Hyksos throughout the Bronze Age lived as a primitive tribe on the outskirts of the Egyptian areas of influence, and when the Egyptians withdrew from the area the Hyksos gradually wandered into the decaying Egyptian farmlands. There's even a series of Egyptian outposts along the Nile valley which are designed to keep these ancients OUT of Egypt during a period of prolonged drought.

You might seriously do a little reading on what modern science says about this history.

Your next assertion is I regret indicative of desperation. The claim is an outright lie. If you could point out where I claimed the Jewish race is "pure" ? Because we both know I never said that. No, you said that in an effort to derail the conversation and take it in directions it was never intended to go with these kind of claims of false prerogatives. We both know I never said that, so really, lets not descend into false insinuations and outright lies rather than discuss these important issues.

Nor am I a zionist. Although I don't take issue with there basic goals. The Judaic people do deserve a slice of their native lands. Thats not really the question. The issue seems to be if the Arabs can ever be satisfied with the ~83% of Judea they ended up with or the 99.9% of Northern Africa. Seems like the Judaic people are having to fight tooth and nail for scraps again and you are still complaining about even that small portion.

Lastly more accusation and outright falsehoods. You seem to be under the false impression I am both in Israel and of the ultra nationalists. Once again you only embarrass yourself with all the false bravado. I am simply sticking up for native rights. Native peoples around the world are watching carefully how the Arabs are responding to a native tribes effort to return to some small scrap of its native homeland. And we are not impressed with the cruelty and brutality of the continued terrorist acts against our native brothers. Just because you might have lost your heritage, doesn't mean we have to lose ours.

Cheers ;--)

 

[Boston1]

The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.

I live in Southern California where this conflict doesn't affect me in any way. What possible prejudice or bigotry would I have towards either side?

In respect for Teddy, I'm going to get back to the topic of the thread...

An occupying power cannot attain sovereignty over the territory it occupies. Therefore, the only solution to this conflict is for it to end.

Again you are taken in with the false narrative of an occupation. How can the Judaic people be occupying a land that was legally set aside for them to build a national Jewish homeland ?

This area like many others was set aside and administered externally until such time as the Judaic people ( in this particular case ) could establish a viable and lasting state. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Its not an occupation, its nation building. Exactly as intended. All the spin later and some people forget the actual history.

I also have no dog in this fight. However its interesting for me from a historical point of view because as a student of history I can more clearly see the spin being placed on the past such that it distorts all rational of the time which created these protectorates in the first place.

 

[Boston1]

Are these UNIVERSAL RIGHTS or do they apply only to some peoples?

Of coarse they are universal rights. They apply to both Israeli's and Palestinian's, equally. That is why the Pals deserve their state too.

Again what happens in your country to universal rights when a crime is committed ? Does the criminal continue to enjoy freedom of movement ? freedom to purchase weapons ? Is the criminal not restricted in some way ?

Universal rights are for upstanding honest law-abiding citizens. Break those laws or find yourself in court for dishonest business practices and you will find yourself with reduced freedoms and under restrictions, just as the palestinians have.

What happens if an act of war is committed ? does the waring faction still enjoy the rights of whatever country they might reside in ?

The simple truth is that the restrictions the palestinians find themselves under have been most deserved and proven themselves an effective deterrent. just look at the weapons being used in this latest round. Knives and clunkers rather than guns and bombs. Very effective indeed and thankfully so. I can imagine now that there might be driving restrictions placed on palestinians within age groups most likely to commit a terrorist act. I can also imagine new restrictions on knives being sold in the Arab occupied areas.

The moral outrage lies squarely at the feet of the terrorists, not the Israeli's

 

[Boston1]

Rocco #265

Well done. One of the issues I think in establishing peaceful relations with the palestinians has been a lack of leadership. There is no authority that governs them. its always been one despot after another stealing the aid money and setting him/herself up as a leader when the palestinians as a whole refuse to be led at all. Other than maybe through the most brutal force as can be seen in the Hamas controlled areas. Its one of the most difficult aspects of the conflict to deal with since there is simply no viable peace partner in authority over them.

Not really interested in hurling insults but the palestinians are a mob not a civilization at this point. They have always been governed from afar but loosely and it was for a long long time a lawless land inhabited by people from all over North Africa. Now that some semblance of civilization and governance has returned the local Arab population is resisting not simply Judaic presence but law and order.

I've read some interesting work on the psychological influences behind the conflict, several dealing with the effect of enforcing the strictures of law and order on a formerly lawless community. Interesting stuff there if a tad off topic.

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?

I found these qualifications to be most interesting

Quote
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
End Quote

This list goes a long way to show that the palestinians not only are not a separate state, but never have been.

They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state.

Under your own definition the palestinians are an itinerant population without any specific ethnic or political affiliation other then a common language. Arabic

So how does further reducing Israeli land instead of Arabic land help these people ? It doesn't and anyone with any insight at all can clearly see it. What it does do is offer an excuse by the Arab states to further reduce the areas assigned to the Judaic people.

Falling back to a line in the sand the Arabs never accepted is simply ludicrous. Is the USA gong to fall back to pre Mexican American war days ? Simply because the area is largely inhabited by Spanish speaking peoples ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?

I found these qualifications to be most interesting

Quote
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
End Quote

This list goes a long way to show that the palestinians not only are not a separate state, but never have been.

They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state.

Under your own definition the palestinians are an itinerant population without any specific ethnic or political affiliation other then a common language. Arabic

So how does further reducing Israeli land instead of Arabic land help these people ? It doesn't and anyone with any insight at all can clearly see it. What it does do is offer an excuse by the Arab states to further reduce the areas assigned to the Judaic people.

Falling back to a line in the sand the Arabs never accepted is simply ludicrous. Is the USA gong to fall back to pre Mexican American war days ? Simply because the area is largely inhabited by Spanish speaking peoples ?

They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state.​

WOW, you need to read up.

 

[Vigilante]

It's ALL THE SAME, supposed Palestinians are simply Islamic...and they do the same shit where ever they are ALLOLWED in!

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?

I found these qualifications to be most interesting

Quote
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
End Quote

This list goes a long way to show that the palestinians not only are not a separate state, but never have been.

They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state.

Under your own definition the palestinians are an itinerant population without any specific ethnic or political affiliation other then a common language. Arabic

So how does further reducing Israeli land instead of Arabic land help these people ? It doesn't and anyone with any insight at all can clearly see it. What it does do is offer an excuse by the Arab states to further reduce the areas assigned to the Judaic people.

Falling back to a line in the sand the Arabs never accepted is simply ludicrous. Is the USA gong to fall back to pre Mexican American war days ? Simply because the area is largely inhabited by Spanish speaking peoples ?

They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state.​

WOW, you need to read up.

I am actually extensively read on this topic, however if you have any new information to offer I'd be happy to give it a go.

PS your link doesn't work

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, now you are faking it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?

(COMMENT)

See Posting #265

You ask for the "when" and the "what."

The WHEN: Israel acquired it's original sovereignty in the 1948---1949 War of Independence. Since that time, the boundaries with Lebanon is described (accepted by Lebanon in 2000).
The Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994 as stated.
The Annexation announced of the 1981 Golan Heights Law.

THE WHAT: The borders are those that Israel Defense. The boundaries are an actual physical reality. The description of the current borders are contained documents as I have provided.

THE ARAB PALESTINIANS and the STATE OF PALESTINE w/o BORDERS

The Arab Palestinians have no defined borders over which they have effective control. The boundaries for the Mandate, as boundaries for the Mandate, were rendered historical in nature. The Boundaries for the territory to which the mandate applied, are no longer applicable since the Mandate was terminated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

My personal take on palestinian rights of self determination are similar to my take on the rights of anyones self determination. Those rights are given up once illegal acts are committed.

Resisting the belligerent occupation of a foreign force, is not illegal. Maintaining a belligerent occupation for almost 50 years and forcing an entire population of people to live under martial law, is illegal. It's also inhuman and immoral.

That is why Israel has no choice but to go back to the '67 borders. Check that.......let me re-phrase my statement.

Israel has no choice but to end the occupation; going back to the '67 borders, will be a result of that.

Murder and terrorism are certainly illegal acts.

So is shooting at people fishing.




So is placing knives next to the bodies of a Palestinian you just shot in cold blood.

Now if you want to consider it a war...

But its not a war. It's an occupation. A war denotes opposing armies going at each other. We don't have that here. What we have is on one side, the 4th most militarized country on the planet and on the other, an entire population of people under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves.

... then I think Israel is being damn lenient.

Is administrative detention lenient?

Is it lenient to bulldoze the home of a family in the middle of the night without giving any notice?

Is it lenient bombing hospitals or targeting first responders?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, now you are faking it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question. I merely added to what has already been presented to you. I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

• Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
• Posting #22: What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR

The Posting #22 (supra) sets out the generalized points. It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty. Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference. The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!

​

There is the proof right there.

(QUESTION)
For the benefit of an old man:

• WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.

(COMMENT)

It does not require a "document." That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty. However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document. It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3), as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered. There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt (Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000) and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place. And the Golan Heights is annex territory (exclusive control).

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant. The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

(QUESTION)

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?

(COMMENT)

See Posting #265

You ask for the "when" and the "what."

The WHEN: Israel acquired it's original sovereignty in the 1948---1949 War of Independence. Since that time, the boundaries with Lebanon is described (accepted by Lebanon in 2000).
The Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994 as stated.
The Annexation announced of the 1981 Golan Heights Law.

THE WHAT: The borders are those that Israel Defense. The boundaries are an actual physical reality. The description of the current borders are contained documents as I have provided.

THE ARAB PALESTINIANS and the STATE OF PALESTINE w/o BORDERS

The Arab Palestinians have no defined borders over which they have effective control. The boundaries for the Mandate, as boundaries for the Mandate, were rendered historical in nature. The Boundaries for the territory to which the mandate applied, are no longer applicable since the Mandate was terminated.

Most Respectfully,
R

The WHEN: Israel acquired it's original sovereignty in the 1948---1949 War of Independence. Since that time, the boundaries with Lebanon is described (accepted by Lebanon in 2000).
The Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994 as stated.
The Annexation announced of the 1981 Golan Heights Law.​

You are still ducking the question as to the acquisition of territory.

BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[Billo_Really]

You seem to be under the false impression I am both in Israel and of the ultra nationalists.

This is definitely off topic, but I'm compelled to say it...

...I'm a Laker fan and completely detest anything out of Beantown.

Now back to the thread...

It doesn't matter where you are, you have the same mindset the Nazis had going into Poland. That is why you will be going back to the '67 borders. The world community will not let Israel keep land it seized in a war.

 

[Billo_Really]

Again what happens in your country to universal rights when a crime is committed ? Does the criminal continue to enjoy freedom of movement ? freedom to purchase weapons ? Is the criminal not restricted in some way ?

That's after they've been convicted through due process of law.

Israel is restricting an entire population of people who've committed no crime.

Universal rights are for upstanding honest law-abiding citizens. Break those laws or find yourself in court for dishonest business practices and you will find yourself with reduced freedoms and under restrictions, just as the palestinians have.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinian's have not broken any laws.

Do you think its okay to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit?

What happens if an act of war is committed ? does the waring faction still enjoy the rights of whatever country they might reside in ?

I wouldn't ask that question in light of the fact Israel commits acts of war on a weekly basis with immunity.

The simple truth is that the restrictions the palestinians find themselves under have been most deserved and proven themselves an effective deterrent. just look at the weapons being used in this latest round. Knives and clunkers rather than guns and bombs. Very effective indeed and thankfully so. I can imagine now that there might be driving restrictions placed on palestinians within age groups most likely to commit a terrorist act. I can also imagine new restrictions on knives being sold in the Arab occupied areas.

You mean occupied Arab areas.

The moral outrage lies squarely at the feet of the terrorists, not the Israeli's

Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's are.

There is no possible way to have a two state solution with people that think like you.