The debates

[P F Tinmore]

Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens

Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura Erakat, Lamis Deek, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.

Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.

The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?

Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?

Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.

 

[rylah]

Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens

Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura Erakat, Lamis Deek, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.

Why would you need so many?
Frankly I've never heard them make any relevant arguments, that I would need anyone else help me refute. The opinion and information of the average Israeli is much more valid than any of those on your list, who don't even live in the Middle East.

But it doesn't matter, because these anti-Israel activists,
rarely dare participate in any actual debates that are not set up.
With you its quantity over quality, once actual debate starts - you disappear.

Would they dare debate Rabbi Oury Sherky?
Would they dare debate Caroline Glick?
Would they dare debate Yousef Haddad?
Would they dare debate Gadi Taub?

You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens

Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura Erakat, Lamis Deek, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.

Why would you need so many?
Frankly I've never heard them make any relevant arguments, that I would need anyone else help me refute. The opinion and information of the average Israeli is much more valid than any of those on your list, who don't even live in the Middle East.

But it doesn't matter, because these anti-Israel activists,
rarely dare participate in any actual debates that are not set up.
With you its quantity over quality, once actual debate starts - you disappear.

Would they dare debate Rabbi Oury Sherky?
Would they dare debate Caroline Glick?
Would they dare debate Yousef Haddad?
Would they dare debate Gadi Taub?

You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.

I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.

 

[rylah]

Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens

Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura Erakat, Lamis Deek, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.

Why would you need so many?
Frankly I've never heard them make any relevant arguments, that I would need anyone else help me refute. The opinion and information of the average Israeli is much more valid than any of those on your list, who don't even live in the Middle East.

But it doesn't matter, because these anti-Israel activists,
rarely dare participate in any actual debates that are not set up.
With you its quantity over quality, once actual debate starts - you disappear.

Would they dare debate Rabbi Oury Sherky?
Would they dare debate Caroline Glick?
Would they dare debate Yousef Haddad?
Would they dare debate Gadi Taub?

You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.

I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.

Yeah I get it, you want to have it both ways,
both claim "the conflict is non-religious" and then use Jesus as "the first Palestinian martyr"
Deny Judaism is anything but a religion, and say the conflict "has nothing to do with Jews"...
...it's clearly self contradictory, in a way that instead reveals the opposite to be true -
the more of this apparent denial, the more it reveals them as your main motives.

As for Rabbi Oury Sherki,
that's exactly what I was saying - the mere suggestion that your pseudo intellectuals get into the same room, let alone dare debate a real intellectual of such caliber intimidates you, instead of actually reaching out to debate such an influential Zionist figure, you begin by mischarechterizing and denying the relevance of his knowledge.

Exactly what I'm talking about,
let's examine by whom the anti-Israel pseudo intellectuals are intimidated,
and wouldn't dare even entertain the thought of debating as "irrelevant":



Rav Cherki was born in Algeria in 1959. His grandfather, Elyezer Cherki, was a Torah scholar and community leader in Algeria, and later in France. Elyezer served as the president of the Zionist Federation of Algeria(Oury Amos Cherki - Wikipedia)

Rav Cherki's father, Hayyim Gedalyah, held a doctorate in economics, and supported his grandfather in his public activities. His mother, Batya Albertin to the House of Steg, was a Holocaust survivor. Her brother, Eddie Steg, was a physician to several French presidents.(אורי שרקי – ויקיפדיה)

I could go on about his expertise in literate and spoken dialects of Arabic,
Latin, Greek, French, Arameic, history, political philosophy etc.
Or about his Davidic family line...you know a Jewish scholar,
a regular Sanhedrin figure, nothing special...

Essentially, if you actually knew anything about his teachers, Judaism or modern Israel,
people like you and your pseudo intellectuals would make sure to not ever
get anywhere near attempting a debate with real intellectual 'grownups'.
Let alone debate one of the leading Jewish scholars of the generation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Debates
SUBTOPIC: Panellists
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

BLUF: The idea of debates is NOT new. What would be novel is if the debates would elevate to an official level. But you will never get the Arab Palestinians to offer a "good faith" engagement.

I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.

(COMMENT)

Well, I have to agree with:

​

You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,
an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.

(COMMENT)

I am waiting. My experience has been that the Israelis play the long game in these matters. Israel does not generally advertise its strategy and seldom its stealth-like intentions. There are so many avenues of approach here and behind-the-curtain activities, that it is hard to anticipate the next move of importance and what the value might be in such a debate (risk analysis).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

RE: Debates
SUBTOPIC: Panellists
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

BLUF: The idea of debates is NOT new. What would be novel is if the debates would elevate to an official level. But you will never get the Arab Palestinians to offer a "good faith" engagement.

I think a civil debate is a great Idea. Rabbi Oury Sherky Is a religious scholar, I am not sure what he could contribute to a non religious conflict. Caroline Glick is very knowledgeable. Yousef Haddad seems a bit shallow. Gadi Taub is interesting but I don't know much about him. You might want to look at Mark Golub.

(COMMENT)

Well, I have to agree with:

​

​

You don't even dare debate me...so give me a break,​

an average Yeshivah boy can grill your pseudo-intellectuals before the end of launch break.​

​

​

(COMMENT)

I am waiting. My experience has been that the Israelis play the long game in these matters. Israel does not generally advertise its strategy and seldom its stealth-like intentions. There are so many avenues of approach here and behind-the-curtain activities, that it is hard to anticipate the next move of importance and what the value might be in such a debate (risk analysis).

Most Respectfully,
R

That's an interesting observation.
I would add, that from my perspective as an Israeli,
we're as a nation, intellectually very dynamic and flexible.
On top of that the culture of debate, and individual opinion is top value in Judaism.

The Talmud doesn't decide a single ruling, controversy and synthesis are the name of the game, I'll exaggerate to make a point - no one claims to actually have the correct answer, but they will sure explain the logic, similarity and difference between the different opposing points of view.

In the Torah our forefathers even argue with G-d... and change His mind
That's actually one of the meanings of the name 'Israel'.

Israel's enemies are usually exactly the opposite, they think in great masses and conformity.
Jews are always a minority, naturally Israelis improvise, individuality can't be predicted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

DEBATE: Is BDS antisemitic? w/ Dani Iftach & Izzy Diab

 

[MJB12741]

Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens

Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura Erakat, Lamis Deek, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.

Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.

The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?

Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?

Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.

What is there worth debating??? As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT. And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change. So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???

 

[danielpalos]

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

 

[MJB12741]

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

 

[danielpalos]

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Bernard Lewis and Leon Wieseltier vs. Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens

Although I appreciate You bringing this unique presentation of some of the most influential intellectuals on West's perspective of the Middle East in one place - but this is not debate.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

The one thing they all seem to agree,
is that "the West" has no clue about the Middle East,
and the notion, that almost as if intellectually incapable.

They only present their subjective perspective on the situation,
without arguing anything specific.

Indeed, it was a wimpy debate.

I would love to see a real debate. Both sides at facing tables challenging each other.

I would like to see people like Susan Akram, Rashid Khalidi, Virginia Tilley, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe
Noura Erakat, Lamis Deek, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub,Nadia Hijab. Of course there are more but more than a half dozen or so on each side would be unworkable.

Who are some of the people you would want on your side? Just curious.

Indeed, your list of cartoon characters are included in most of your silly YouTube videos.

The question was: What Israelis can handle a debate?

Should I offer a youtube video in response to your YouTube video?

Sure, that would help. Bet you can't post one that is not a PMW or MEMRI.

What is there worth debating??? As a country Israel IS & Palestine IS NOT. And as long as Palestinian leadership punishes the Palestinian citizens by not joining with other Arab nations to recognize Israel & work with Israel for a lasting peace that will not change. So, again I ask --- what is there worth debating???

It lets people know there are two sides.

The medea tells them there is only one.

 

[MJB12741]

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

Hey fine. I even strongly support Palestinian self determination. No longer should Israel have to provide for them only to be condemned by the Palestinian leadership.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

BLUF: Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.

PREFACE: As a layman, I can see a conflict.

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

(REFERENCE)

◈ LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​

RESTRICTED A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948 Memorandum "A"​

EXCERPT: After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

​

◈ Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 on the Status of Palestine​

RESTRICTED Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs 11 December 2012​

​

(COMMENT)

The KEY here is that after A/RES/67/19, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations," Palestine was identified as a State and could its authorities be identified as a government.

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933) there are criteria:

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.​

SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE. However, recognition is not required to be a state. Recognition is only required for membership in the UN. Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state. The trouble is the matter of territory and government. Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control? I consider that Area "A"...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

Hey fine. I even strongly support Palestinian self determination. No longer should Israel have to provide for them only to be condemned by the Palestinian leadership.

WOW, is that misleading.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

BLUF: Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.

PREFACE: As a layman, I can see a conflict.

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

(REFERENCE)

◈ LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​

RESTRICTED A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948 Memorandum "A"​

EXCERPT: After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

​

◈ Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 on the Status of Palestine​

RESTRICTED Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs 11 December 2012​

View attachment 464579
​

(COMMENT)

The KEY here is that even after A/RES/67/19, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations," Palestine was not identified as a State or a country nor could its authorities be identified as a government.

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933) there are criteria:

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.​

Most Respectfully,
R

b) a defined territory;

And to the question you always duck.

Where is Israel's defined territory?

 

[MJB12741]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

BLUF: Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.

PREFACE: As a layman, I can see a conflict.

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

(REFERENCE)

◈ LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​

RESTRICTED A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948 Memorandum "A"​

EXCERPT: After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

​

◈ Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 on the Status of Palestine​

RESTRICTED Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs 11 December 2012​

View attachment 464579
​

(COMMENT)

The KEY here is that even after A/RES/67/19, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations," Palestine was not identified as a State or a country nor could its authorities be identified as a government.

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933) there are criteria:

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.​

Most Respectfully,
R

b) a defined territory;

And to the question you always duck.

Where is Israel's defined territory?

Defined territory by who? You want Israel to define it. Bless you & let it be.

 

[danielpalos]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

BLUF: Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.

PREFACE: As a layman, I can see a conflict.

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

(REFERENCE)

◈ LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​

RESTRICTED A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948 Memorandum "A"​

EXCERPT: After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

​

◈ Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 on the Status of Palestine​

RESTRICTED Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs 11 December 2012​

View attachment 464579
​

(COMMENT)

The KEY here is that after A/RES/67/19, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations," Palestine was identified as a State and could its authorities be identified as a government.

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933) there are criteria:

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.​

SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE. However, recognition is not required to be a state. Recognition is only required for membership in the UN. Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state. The trouble is the matter of territory and government. Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control? I consider that Area "A"...

Most Respectfully,
R

There are a wide variety of views regarding the legal status of the State of Palestine, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is de jure sovereign.[1][2][3][4] It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November, 2012.[5][6] As of 31 July 2019, a total of 138 countries recognize it.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ danielpalos, MJB12741, et al,

BLUF: Well, I'm not so sure that your assumption and "Wikipedia" information is accurate.

PREFACE: As a layman, I can see a conflict.

What is the holdup for another State in historic Palestine?

Opportunities given Opportunities rejected. Go figure Palestinian leadership.

I just read on Wikipedia that the State of Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. They merely need "free trade" agreements with their neighbors.

(REFERENCE)

◈ LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE”​

RESTRICTED A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948 Memorandum "A"​

EXCERPT: After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

​

◈ Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 on the Status of Palestine​

RESTRICTED Memorandum from the Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs 11 December 2012​

View attachment 464579
​

(COMMENT)

The KEY here is that after A/RES/67/19, wherein the UN decided "to accord Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations," Palestine was identified as a State and could its authorities be identified as a government.

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933) there are criteria:

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.​

SO, up to the point when A/RES/67/19 was passed, Palestine was NOT recognized by the UN as a STATE. However, recognition is not required to be a state. Recognition is only required for membership in the UN. Once an entity achieves the four criteria - it is technically a state. The trouble is the matter of territory and government. Where in the territory does the Ramallah Government have full control? I consider that Area "A"...

Most Respectfully,
R

There are a wide variety of views regarding the legal status of the State of Palestine, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is de jure sovereign.[1][2][3][4] It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November, 2012.[5][6] As of 31 July 2019, a total of 138 countries recognize it.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine

Is Palestine a state? It depends on who you ask.

Palestine was created as a state in 1924. There has been a lot of smoke blown at the issue but there has been nothing concrete.

So, who has the authority to dismantle a foreign state?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Demarcation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The demarcation of Israel is self-determined and in most cases under a bilateral agreement between Israel and its adjacent neighboring countries.

b) a defined territory;

And to the question you always duck.
Where is Israel's defined territory?

(DEMARCATION REFERENCES)

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law •​

​

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace •​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Lebanese Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

(COMMENT)

See Posting 631, RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
See Posting 18112 RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
See Posting # 78 RE: Israel's Lies

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. In the case of the claims made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the applicable international boundaries were established at the conclusion of the 1948 War for Independence. These boundaries were outlined in the two Treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan (supra).​

​

Article 11. Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty • Pg 39 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017​

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.​

​

Article 11. Boundary regimes, Law of Treaties • Pg 60 International Law Handbook © United Nations, 2017​

A succession of States does not as such affect:​

(a) a boundary established by a treaty; or​

(b) obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary.​

(Ω)

You make this point • "And to the question, you always duck" • regularly. And each time I respond. What is it that you think I "duck?"

Most Respectfully,
R