Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers

[P F Tinmore]

Where did you read that Israel had to acquire the land it sits on??
Again, you made the whole acquiring thing up.
The fact is. 'Acquiring land' is a PF Tinmore pre requisite for Israel to have become a legit state.
Unfortunately for you, your pre requisites mean nothing in the real world.

I am just stating facts.

Politics don't care much for facts.

You cant just name a bold statement like that a d say you are stating facts without backing it yo.

Still no link I see, just more ducking as usual.

I can post the links again if you like but it seems that you always miss them.

 

[toastman]

But you think that Israel proper is Palestine too, and your Palestinian friends are always trying to kill Israelis and some times succeed.

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is a western thing. In Palestine, Israel is regularly called 48. Palestinians living in Israel are called 1948 Palestinians.

Probably because Israel has never acquired the land it sits on.

Are you actually telling us that the Palestinians acquired the land of Israel? I don't think so. It seems that the land was owned by the Turks, many of them rich landowners, then the British won the right to the land, and then the land of Israel was ceded to the Jews. I would imagine that you have no problem with that huge portion of the Mandate given to Jordan since the Jordanians are Muslims and not Jews. I guess Mr. Tinmore expects to be called a 1948 Palestinian when he returns from being a refugee here in America.

In history, Mr. Tinmore, much land has changed hands.

Tinmore might post in the IP forum often, but the truth is he knows very lite facts concerning the important aspects of the conflict.
He didn't even know when Palestine technically became a country until Rocco told him

 

[toastman]

I am just stating facts.

Politics don't care much for facts.

You cant just name a bold statement like that a d say you are stating facts without backing it yo.

Still no link I see, just more ducking as usual.

I can post the links again if you like but it seems that you always miss them.

Liar, you NEVER posted a link that states Israel needed to 'acquire land' to declare independence on it.
More song and dance

 

[toastman]

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is a western thing. In Palestine, Israel is regularly called 48. Palestinians living in Israel are called 1948 Palestinians.

Probably because Israel has never acquired the land it sits on.

Are you actually telling us that the Palestinians acquired the land of Israel? I don't think so. It seems that the land was owned by the Turks, many of them rich landowners, then the British won the right to the land, and then the land of Israel was ceded to the Jews. I would imagine that you have no problem with that huge portion of the Mandate given to Jordan since the Jordanians are Muslims and not Jews. I guess Mr. Tinmore expects to be called a 1948 Palestinian when he returns from being a refugee here in America.

In history, Mr. Tinmore, much land has changed hands.

Indeed it has, but in this case no.

Sure it has. All the land in Israel proper belongs to Israel.

 

[Billo_Really]

Let's walk through this a step at a time.

Lets....

On the matter of "resistance:" What is this "right" you cite? Does it say "armed resistance?" Or, does it say: "refrain from the threat or use of force?"

You are deliberately trying to convolute this issue. There is nothing confusing about the right to defend your home against foreign invasion and there isn't a single international law that say's you can't. So why are you inferring there is one?

On the matter of Poland as an analogy. I don't believe I said anything of the sort you imply here.

You're arguing that it is legal to occupy a territory by force.

That's what Hitler did in Poland. If you think its legal for Israel to occupy the West Bank, then it was legal for Hitler to occupy Poland.

And by way of analogy, Israel DID NOT annex either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

Then who built the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank? Why can't Gazan's fish without getting shot at? Why can't they have trade with foreign nations without Israeli commando's boarding ships (flying under the flag of a sovereign nation) in international waters?

The establishment of law and order, and the suppression of Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) violence is not resistance (from an Israeli perspective).

Well that's the problem you need to fix.

I'm not. The establishment of a Jewish State was a UN adopted recommendation.

With the caveat that you couldn't disenfranchise the indigenous non-Jewish population, but you didn't honor that part.

First remember that the West Bank, at the time the occupation began, was not Palestinian Territory. It was sovereign Jordanian territory. There is a Peace Treaty with Jordan. The Israelis did not suppress the right of self-determination (Palestinian Independence).

You're full of shit! Palestinian's did not determine they needed 500 roadblocks to restrict their freedom of movement.

The territory is occupied for a number of reasons, least of all, it is strategic territory, critical to the protection of the Sovereignty of Israel; inhabitied by a hostile indigenous people.

Critical to the protection of the only nuclear power in the ME?

The analogy is not applicable.

And why is that? This is the 2nd time I've asked this question and no one seems to be able to answer it.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

And in this case, Israel has not refrained from the threat or use of force.

OK, maybe some piece of that is true. But is it utilizing the basic tenants "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." At the time the occupation began, there was no "Palestinian Law."

The basic tenants of international law is to protect innocent civilians taking no part in hostilities. The blockade of Gaza, does just the opposite. It collectively punishes all 1.5 million residents for crimes they did not commit.

Is it necessary to maintain the security of Israeli sovereignty and for the protection of Israeli citizens. I say yes!

In Israel. Not in territories that are not Israel.

Israel has no right to protect anything on land that isn't theirs.

Article 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

A population under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend itself, is not a threat to anyone.

May be! But is it necessary in the face of a hostile and belligerent enemy population? I say yes!

Israel created this hostile and belligerent enemy, by occupying land that isn't Israel's for almost a half-century and by making that populations daily life a living hell.

No matter what name you choose, the HoAP are a hostile and belligerent enemy population. They go out of their way to incite violence. A "band guy" by any other name is still a "bad guy."

And the "occupier", is not the "good guy".

I will grant you that the entirely Settlement Program is flawed, and that the Settlers had been less than helpful in the establishment of peace.

It's more than flawed, it's illegal.

The demographics was an Oslo Accord agreement, beyond the customary law. The Palestinians agreed to the establishment of Areas "A, B and C."

The Israeli's were in breach of that agreement, so it is un-enforceable.

Hummm! I'm not sure what that means.

It means you blame the Palestinian's for violence Israel has caused.

 

[MrMax]

Let's walk through this a step at a time.

Lets....

On the matter of "resistance:" What is this "right" you cite? Does it say "armed resistance?" Or, does it say: "refrain from the threat or use of force?"

You are deliberately trying to convolute this issue. There is nothing confusing about the right to defend your home against foreign invasion and there isn't a single international law that say's you can't. So why are you inferring there is one?


You're arguing that it is legal to occupy a territory by force.

That's what Hitler did in Poland. If you think its legal for Israel to occupy the West Bank, then it was legal for Hitler to occupy Poland.


Then who built the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank? Why can't Gazan's fish without getting shot at? Why can't they have trade with foreign nations without Israeli commando's boarding ships (flying under the flag of a sovereign nation) in international waters?


Well that's the problem you need to fix.

With the caveat that you couldn't disenfranchise the indigenous non-Jewish population, but you didn't honor that part.

You're full of shit! Palestinian's did not determine they needed 500 roadblocks to restrict their freedom of movement.

Critical to the protection of the only nuclear power in the ME?


And why is that? This is the 2nd time I've asked this question and no one seems to be able to answer it.


And in this case, Israel has not refrained from the threat or use of force.

The basic tenants of international law is to protect innocent civilians taking no part in hostilities. The blockade of Gaza, does just the opposite. It collectively punishes all 1.5 million residents for crimes they did not commit.

In Israel. Not in territories that are not Israel.

Israel has no right to protect anything on land that isn't theirs.

A population under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend itself, is not a threat to anyone.


Israel created this hostile and belligerent enemy, by occupying land that isn't Israel's for almost a half-century and by making that populations daily life a living hell.


And the "occupier", is not the "good guy".


It's more than flawed, it's illegal.

The demographics was an Oslo Accord agreement, beyond the customary law. The Palestinians agreed to the establishment of Areas "A, B and C."

The Israeli's were in breach of that agreement, so it is un-enforceable.

Hummm! I'm not sure what that means.

It means you blame the Palestinian's for violence Israel has caused.

So when are you and the tin hypocrite giving your land back to the indians?

And why would anyone give land back to arabs, they fucked up every country they have now.

 

[Phoenall]

I am just stating facts.

Politics don't care much for facts.

You cant just name a bold statement like that a d say you are stating facts without backing it yo.

Still no link I see, just more ducking as usual.

I can post the links again if you like but it seems that you always miss them.

You can post the links as many times as you want it does not make them valid if the source is biased and relies on complete fabrications. The land had not been arab muslims since 1012 C.E. and was handed over to the League of Nations as spoils of war in 1919. They had the legal right to dispose of the land as they saw fit, just as I have the legal right to dispose of my land as I see fit. This is why we saw the birth of 4 new nations in the M.E., Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and trans Jordan on land that was LoN mandate. So you produce your links that show the Ottomans or LoN gave the land to the Palestinians and the treaty signed by the contracting parties, INCLUDING PALESTINE,

 

[Phoenall]

Let's walk through this a step at a time.

Lets....

On the matter of "resistance:" What is this "right" you cite? Does it say "armed resistance?" Or, does it say: "refrain from the threat or use of force?"

You are deliberately trying to convolute this issue. There is nothing confusing about the right to defend your home against foreign invasion and there isn't a single international law that say's you can't. So why are you inferring there is one?


You're arguing that it is legal to occupy a territory by force.

That's what Hitler did in Poland. If you think its legal for Israel to occupy the West Bank, then it was legal for Hitler to occupy Poland.


Then who built the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank? Why can't Gazan's fish without getting shot at? Why can't they have trade with foreign nations without Israeli commando's boarding ships (flying under the flag of a sovereign nation) in international waters?


Well that's the problem you need to fix.

With the caveat that you couldn't disenfranchise the indigenous non-Jewish population, but you didn't honor that part.

You're full of shit! Palestinian's did not determine they needed 500 roadblocks to restrict their freedom of movement.

Critical to the protection of the only nuclear power in the ME?


And why is that? This is the 2nd time I've asked this question and no one seems to be able to answer it.


And in this case, Israel has not refrained from the threat or use of force.

The basic tenants of international law is to protect innocent civilians taking no part in hostilities. The blockade of Gaza, does just the opposite. It collectively punishes all 1.5 million residents for crimes they did not commit.

In Israel. Not in territories that are not Israel.

Israel has no right to protect anything on land that isn't theirs.

A population under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend itself, is not a threat to anyone.


Israel created this hostile and belligerent enemy, by occupying land that isn't Israel's for almost a half-century and by making that populations daily life a living hell.


And the "occupier", is not the "good guy".


It's more than flawed, it's illegal.

The demographics was an Oslo Accord agreement, beyond the customary law. The Palestinians agreed to the establishment of Areas "A, B and C."

The Israeli's were in breach of that agreement, so it is un-enforceable.

Hummm! I'm not sure what that means.

It means you blame the Palestinian's for violence Israel has caused.

Simple answer to all your questions is International law and the Geneva Conventions. I would advise you to look them up and read what they say.

Here is what a ICJ Judge had to say about the occupation, thus putting into International Law the right of Israel to occupy land


Political figures and international jurists have discussed the existence of “permissible” or “legal occupations.” In a seminal article on this question, entitled What Weight to Conquest, Professor, Judge Schwebel wrote:
“A state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense. … Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
“As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”

Then this

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, has concurred, further clarifying:
“Territorial Rights Under International Law. ... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.

If the West Bank and Gaza were indeed occupied territory – belonging to someone else and unjustly seized by force – there could be no grounds for negotiating new borders

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

On the matter of "resistance:" What is this "right" you cite? Does it say "armed resistance?" Or, does it say: "refrain from the threat or use of force?"

You are deliberately trying to convolute this issue. There is nothing confusing about the right to defend your home against foreign invasion and there isn't a single international law that say's you can't. So why are you inferring there is one?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian is not defending their "home against foreign invasion." That is a misconception from the start. Who was invaded? Sovereign Jordanian territory was invaded; not Palestinian.

Special Note:

The 1948 Hostage case (United States of America v. Willem List, et al.) distinguished between invasion and occupation as follows:

The term invasion implies a military operation while an occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----​

[T]he 2004 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory opinion, addressed the question of a broader interpretation of ‘occupation’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Under such an interpretation, the occupier must be in a position to carry out governance over the occupied territory even though it does not exercise sovereignty. However, where an occupation is established at law, the failure to set up an administration does not relieve the occupier of its obligations under IHL.

SOURCE: IRC International Review Volume 94 Number 885 Spring 2012

You are inferring that the Palestinian has some "right" to conduct "Jihad and Armed Struggle." I suggest that "every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, Jihadist and Fedayeen" that threaten the sovereignty of other nations and regional peace.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has no special right or dispensation that allows "organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities," or allow HoAP territories to be "used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens."

In fact, I am suggesting that international law does not encourage the use of force, but encourages the "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered."

You're arguing that it is legal to occupy a territory by force.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not say "Occupation is either legal or illegal." We were discussing the administration of an occupation and the duty of an Occupation Force to maintain law and order. We were also taking about the issue of "protected persons" like the Palestinians, when they turn into HoAPs and commit criminal activity under the guise of self defense while in an occupied status.

That's what Hitler did in Poland. If you think its legal for Israel to occupy the West Bank, then it was legal for Hitler to occupy Poland.

(COMMENT)

That is your opinion. But it is not what I said. In the case of the 1939 Invasion of Poland, the State of Poland was a sovereign nation and not posing a threat to German national security. In the case of the 1948 Invasion of Israel, the State of Israel was a sovereign nation and not posing a threat to Arab League national security. In the case of the 1967 Invasion of the West Bank, the State of Jordan was a sovereign nation. However, it threatened to intercede on behalf of the Egyptians and threatened Israeli national security.

Your analogy is not accurate to the issue at hand.

Then who built the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank? Why can't Gazan's fish without getting shot at? Why can't they have trade with foreign nations without Israeli commando's boarding ships (flying under the flag of a sovereign nation) in international waters?

(COMMENT)

Is there some restriction that prohibits the Occupying Power from doing this. The Occupation Power may take what actions are necessary to achieve law and order, at the same time, securing the peace.

As far as the "specific complaint" pertaining to (what I assume to by the Mavi Marmara Incident, wherein on 31 May 2010 a flotilla of six vessels was boarded and taken over by
Israeli Defense Forces 72 nautical miles from land), the UN Security Council directed Inquiry stated in part:

(Excerpt Paragraph 72)

Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced.​

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----​

(Paragraph 73)

73. The Panel now turns to consider whether the other components of a lawful blockade under international law are met. Traditionally, naval blockades have most commonly been imposed in situations where there is an international armed conflict. While it is uncontested that there has been protracted violence taking the form of an armed conflict between Israel and armed groups in Hamas-controlled Gaza, the characterization of this conflict as international is disputed. The conclusion of the Panel in this regard rests upon the facts as they exist on the ground. The specific circumstances of Gaza are unique and are not replicated anywhere in the world. Nor are they likely to be. Gaza and Israel are both distinct territorial and political areas. Hamas is the de facto political and administrative authority in Gaza and to a large extent has control over events on the ground there. It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside its territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza’s status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities. The law does not operate in a political vacuum, and it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict. This conclusion goes no further than is necessary for the Panel to carry out its mandate. What other implications may or may not flow from it are not before us, even though the Panel is mindful that under the law of armed conflict a State can hardly rely on some of its provisions but not pay heed to others.​

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----​

(Excerpt Paragraph 81)

The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

SOURCE: Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident

The establishment of law and order, and the suppression of Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) violence is not resistance (from an Israeli perspective).

Well that's the problem you need to fix.

(COMMENT)

So, you are suggesting that the Occupation should be more restrictive in order to better mitigate HoAP activity.

I'm not. The establishment of a Jewish State was a UN adopted recommendation.

With the caveat that you couldn't disenfranchise the indigenous non-Jewish population, but you didn't honor that part.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency, in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission, fulfilled the prerequisite "Steps Preparatory to Independence" of the "Jewish State" as outlined and adopted. In contrast, the Arab Higher Committee refused to participate relative or cooperate with the UN Palestine Commission relative to the establishment of the "Arab State;" a territorial allotment significantly larger than what the Palestinians claim today.

It is not a case that the HoAP was "disenfranchised," as much as, the HoAP withdrew on their own volition. They instead chose armed conflict (Jihad) as their first choice for a solution. After several failed attempt to attain their objective through the use of force and external military combat power, THEN they decide to wage a war of International Law bantering.

First remember that the West Bank, at the time the occupation began, was not Palestinian Territory. It was sovereign Jordanian territory. There is a Peace Treaty with Jordan. The Israelis did not suppress the right of self-determination (Palestinian Independence).

You're full of shit! Palestinian's did not determine they needed 500 roadblocks to restrict their freedom of movement.

(COMMENT)

Yes, quite right. The internal security countermeasures were a decision made by the Occupation Power to achieve law and order, and mitigate the organization of irregular forces, armed bands, including mercenaries, Jihadist and Fedayeen" that threaten the sovereignty of other nations and regional peace; and of course, the security of Israel and her citizenry.

The territory is occupied for a number of reasons, least of all, it is strategic territory, critical to the protection of the Sovereignty of Israel; inhabited by a hostile indigenous people.

Critical to the protection of the only nuclear power in the ME?

(COMMENT)

I think we had a disconnect here. The Jordan Valley only has strategic value in terms of Second and Third Generation Warfare considerations. Asymmetric and Fourth Generation Warfare models are less of a concerned application in terms of more conventional war battlefield approaches.

I had not mentioned the Nuclear Weapons potential because that is merely assumption and conjecture. No one has reported seeing or detecting a tactical nuclear device under Israeli control. The application of the IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East is an ongoing process and Israel has been solidly behind the three-pillar mandate in the areas of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear safety and security. It is ONLY an ASSUMPTION that Israel had Nuclear Weapons.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

And in this case, Israel has not refrained from the threat or use of force.

(COMMENT)

Who fires the rockets? The HoAP demonstrate on nearly a daily basis that they not only threaten to use force, but do use force.

The basic tenants of international law is to protect innocent civilians taking no part in hostilities. The blockade of Gaza, does just the opposite. It collectively punishes all 1.5 million residents for crimes they did not commit.

(COMMENT)

√82. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. 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.

SOURCE: Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident

It is not collective punishment, but a countermeasure to the complex threat.

Is it necessary to maintain the security of Israeli sovereignty and for the protection of Israeli citizens. I say yes!

In Israel. Not in territories that are not Israel.
Israel has no right to protect anything on land that isn't theirs.
A population under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend itself, is not a threat to anyone.

(COMMENT)

There is no evidence of defensive strategies on the part of the HoAP; only offensive strategies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You cant just name a bold statement like that a d say you are stating facts without backing it yo.

Still no link I see, just more ducking as usual.

I can post the links again if you like but it seems that you always miss them.

Liar, you NEVER posted a link that states Israel needed to 'acquire land' to declare independence on it.
More song and dance

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.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Israel was declared in Palestine's territory defined by international borders. This is a violation if their inalienable rights.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

 

[toastman]

Israel territory is defined territory.

But none of what you posted backs up your claim about LAND TRANSFER , which btw is a real estate issue, was needed for Israel to legally declare independence.



Like usual, you are making shit up, and acting like you know what you're talking about.

Also, Israel obviously has defined territory, as they has INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS with Egypt and Jordan, that came into effect by U.N brokered treaties.

 

[aris2chat]

Show me the law that states that killing foreign troops is murder.

Why, M. Tinmore, probably almost all of the IDF troops were born there so how can you call them foreigners? If anyone's children were born in the U.S. regardless of where their parents come from, is anyone calling them foreigners? Now when your brethren are going into Syria from all parts of the world to conduct their Jihad, then they are foreigners.

Almost all Palestinians killed by Israel are killed in Palestine.

They are foreign troops.

as of yet there is no palestine, only an authority.

 

[toastman]

Why, M. Tinmore, probably almost all of the IDF troops were born there so how can you call them foreigners? If anyone's children were born in the U.S. regardless of where their parents come from, is anyone calling them foreigners? Now when your brethren are going into Syria from all parts of the world to conduct their Jihad, then they are foreigners.

Almost all Palestinians killed by Israel are killed in Palestine.

They are foreign troops.

as of yet there is no palestine, only an authority.

Tinmore has no clue what he's talking about, as usual.
He just makes up crap to further his agenda.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have forgotten.

Israel was declared in Palestine's territory defined by international borders. This is a violation if their inalienable rights.

(QUESTION)

International Borders of Palestine: Where?

• The defined territory; Where and When?
• The government; who and seated where?
• The capacity to enter into relations with the other states; where and who?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have forgotten.

Israel was declared in Palestine's territory defined by international borders. This is a violation if their inalienable rights.

(QUESTION)

International Borders of Palestine: Where?

• The defined territory; Where and When?
• The government; who and seated where?
• The capacity to enter into relations with the other states; where and who?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jees, Rocco, you are the expert. You should know this stuff.

You should know that the right to self determinations without external interference, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity, predate statehood and apply to non self governing territories.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have forgotten.

Israel was declared in Palestine's territory defined by international borders. This is a violation if their inalienable rights.

(QUESTION)

International Borders of Palestine: Where?

• The defined territory; Where and When?
• The government; who and seated where?
• The capacity to enter into relations with the other states; where and who?

Most Respectfully,
R

Jees, Rocco, you are the expert. You should know this stuff.

You should know that the right to self determinations without external interference, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity, predate statehood and apply to non self governing territories.

Ain't nuthin' holdin' 'em back. Get with the program or STFU. You're welcome.

 

[Billo_Really]

So when are you and the tin hypocrite giving your land back to the indians?

As soon as they give me back all the money I lost in their casino's.

And why would anyone give land back to arabs, they fucked up every country they have now.

Israel is not giving back land, they're getting the **** off land that isn't theirs.

 

[Hossfly]

So when are you and the tin hypocrite giving your land back to the indians?

As soon as they give me back all the money I lost in their casino's.

And why would anyone give land back to arabs, they fucked up every country they have now.

Israel is not giving back land, they're getting the **** off land that isn't theirs.

I'll take that bet and raise you a ton, Billy.

 

[toastman]

So when are you and the tin hypocrite giving your land back to the indians?

As soon as they give me back all the money I lost in their casino's.

And why would anyone give land back to arabs, they fucked up every country they have now.

Israel is not giving back land, they're getting the **** off land that isn't theirs.

No they're not. Even if you have another 28 hissy fits, Israel isn't doing ANYTHING until there is a peace deal.

 

[Phoenall]

I can post the links again if you like but it seems that you always miss them.

Liar, you NEVER posted a link that states Israel needed to 'acquire land' to declare independence on it.
More song and dance

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.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Israel was declared in Palestine's territory defined by international borders. This is a violation if their inalienable rights.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Wrong again as Palestine did not meet the above criteria, you see it went from being an Ottoman acquisition to a LoN acquisition and never a stand alone nation. So the legal owners of the land in 1921 decided to allocate a parcel of land as the new National home of the Jews. They did not need the permission of the nomadic arab muslim farm workers to do this.

So until you can come up with an International treaty signed by the Palestinian leaders that declares Palestine as of 1919 to be a stand alone nation with free determination and a government you are just blowing wind.

By the way the borders you keep talking about are these, and see what the land was destined for