The debates

[Hollie]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

(COMMENT)

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) found in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 (AKA: Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. (Not one in nearly three decades!)

Most Respectfully,
R

Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Now you are just grasping at straws.

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

(COMMENT)

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) found in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 (AKA: Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. (Not one in nearly three decades!)

Most Respectfully,
R

Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in Article V (PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) is an inalienable right. And nothing was coerced from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was all done with complete transparency in the light of day. Not only was the Accords seen by the Norwegian, and the witnesses were the US and Russians, the principal signatories were awards the Nobel Peace Prize.

In no way does this violate the principles outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). I think you have gotten all the mileage you can out of that nebulas claim "inalienable rights."

inalienable rights • In theory, those rights which are incapable of voluntary or involuntary transfer or surrender and which inhere in individuals because they are based on human dignity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217A (III)) recognizes that ‘the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. There is, however, no enumeration of which human rights are to be regarded as inalienable; and the term clearly is coextensive with, and must be related to, non-derogable rights, under, e.g., art. 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 :​

SOURCE:​

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. pp 275-276 • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

198 Madison Avenue,​

New York, New York 10016​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Now you are just grasping at straws.

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

(COMMENT)

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) found in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 (AKA: Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. (Not one in nearly three decades!)

Most Respectfully,
R

Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in Article V (PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) is an inalienable right. And nothing was coerced from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was all done with complete transparency in the light of day. Not only was the Accords seen by the Norwegian, and the witnesses were the US and Russians, the principal signatories were awards the Nobel Peace Prize.

In no way does this violate the principles outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). I think you have gotten all the mileage you can out of that nebulas claim "inalienable rights."

inalienable rights • In theory, those rights which are incapable of voluntary or involuntary transfer or surrender and which inhere in individuals because they are based on human dignity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217A (III)) recognizes that ‘the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. There is, however, no enumeration of which human rights are to be regarded as inalienable; and the term clearly is coextensive with, and must be related to, non-derogable rights, under, e.g., art. 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 :​

SOURCE:​

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. pp 275-276 • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

198 Madison Avenue,​

New York, New York 10016​

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

Jerusalem is in Palestine.
Refugees have the right to return.
Settlements are illegal.
Security arrangements violate sovereignty.
Palestine has had international borders since 1922.

What is there to negotiate?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, I question your premise.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.

• Jerusalem is in Palestine.
• Refugees have the right to return.
• Settlements are illegal.
• Security arrangements violate sovereignty.
• Palestine has had international borders since 1922.

What is there to negotiate?

(COMMENT)

I have serious reservations about your interpretations.

I am not sure where Palestine is, or if something like the State of Palestine has met the criteria of the Montevideo Convention (1933).

YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River. If we take that as a ground truth, then there is place that meets your criteria. Israel is a reality and it is a sovereign nation. It cannot be claimed by the Arab Palestinian people. That is just the plain reality on the "Question of Palestine."

◈. I am still waiting for the actual "Law" or the "International Convention" that says "Refugees" of any sort have a "Right to Return." And just who are the "Refugees of which you speak? Even if you are talking about the displaced people as a result of the Arab Internvetion of 1948 and the War for Independence by Israel,​

​

​

◈ As to the legality of the Settlements in Area "C" → Well, that was a question in 1993, when the DOP (Oslo I) was signed. And as I pointed out, it was a question deferred by both the State of Israel and the PLO.​

​

✦. As agreed upon by the Israelis and the PLO:​

​

c. "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. (Oslo II • Annex I: Protocol Concerning Redeployment and Security Arrangements • Chapter 2 - Redeployment and Security Arrangements • Article XI LAND)​

​

​

​

◈. As to the Question of Borders: What you call the 1922 Borders is actually "are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." (Palestine Order in Council 10 August 1922 • Part I - Preliminary • Paragraph 1 - Title). Borders are specifically mentioned in Article V of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) on Interim Self- Government Arrangements (1993).​

NOW! Without regard to what you want to believe, or what you think is true, the Accords were not signed backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.

◈.General Assembly A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974:​

​

✦. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic considers it to be not only perfectly legitimate and natural but also necessary for the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine -- that is, the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] -- to participate in the discussion of this agenda item.​

​

✦. The Soviet Union was pleased to note and to accept the decisions taken at the Sixth Arab Summit Conference held at Algiers in November 1973, and at the Second Islamic Conference of Kings and Heads of State and Government held at Lahore in February 1974, recognizing the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine.​

​

✦. In casting a positive vote, my delegation did not consider it necessary to determine whether the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestine people. Its vote is, moreover, without prejudice to New Zealand's attitude to the substance of the item, or to other aspects of the Middle East question, or to the attendance of the PLO at other meetings on other occasions.​

​

etc, etc, etc...​

​

◈. Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974:​

​

2. To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;.​

This position you espouse, that there is nothing to negotiate, is very similar to that actual political position the Arab Palestinian People have taken since the 1995 Accords (a quarter-century ago). You can see just how successful that strategy has been.

This "behind their back" view point is ridiculous. It could not have been more open in the way the negations were conducted. Anyone that claims they did not know about it, simply did not want to know about it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Now you are just grasping at straws.

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

(COMMENT)

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) found in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 (AKA: Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. (Not one in nearly three decades!)

Most Respectfully,
R

Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in Article V (PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) is an inalienable right. And nothing was coerced from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was all done with complete transparency in the light of day. Not only was the Accords seen by the Norwegian, and the witnesses were the US and Russians, the principal signatories were awards the Nobel Peace Prize.

In no way does this violate the principles outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). I think you have gotten all the mileage you can out of that nebulas claim "inalienable rights."

inalienable rights • In theory, those rights which are incapable of voluntary or involuntary transfer or surrender and which inhere in individuals because they are based on human dignity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 (General Assembly Res. 217A (III)) recognizes that ‘the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. There is, however, no enumeration of which human rights are to be regarded as inalienable; and the term clearly is coextensive with, and must be related to, non-derogable rights, under, e.g., art. 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) of 16 December 1966 :​

SOURCE:​

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. pp 275-276 • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​

198 Madison Avenue,​

New York, New York 10016​

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians and without their approval.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

Jerusalem is in Palestine.
Refugees have the right to return.
Settlements are illegal.
Security arrangements violate sovereignty.
Palestine has had international borders since 1922.

What is there to negotiate?

So , all of Jerusalem is in “ Palestine?” Anyone notice why he never responds to obvious questions such as why the Israelis would agree to eventually over a period of time be annexed to the “ Palestinian State”, have no say in Gov”t or be forbidden to access to their Holy Sites??
Love to see him saying the same old thing over and over again

 

[P F Tinmore]

And just who are the "Refugees of which you speak? Even if you are talking about the displaced people as a result of the Arab Internvetion of 1948 and the War for Independence by Israel,

​

The refugees were not from the 1948 war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.

The Mandate for Palestine operated inside Palestine's international borders. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Hollie]

YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.

The Mandate for Palestine operated inside Palestine's international borders. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That's obviously incorrect.

 

[USAF 2023]

YOU keep telling me that the "Palestine" you are describing covers the entirety of the territory, formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River.

The Mandate for Palestine operated inside Palestine's international borders. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That's obviously incorrect.

The Mandate for “ Palestine” was 1919. The Balfour Declaration was 1917

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[USAF 2023]

Poor Tinmore ! Keeps repeating the same thing over and over again . Isn’t that the definition of INSANITY?? Lol

 

[rylah]

Poor Tinmore ! Keeps repeating the same thing over and over again . Isn’t that the definition of INSANITY?? Lol

Typical Islamist tactic,
first they lie then they think if the lie even serves them.

In his case after 10 years of daily Jihadi propaganda he bragged about a new house,
in the case of the BLM main organizer, she got 3 mansions in just 2 years...

Wonder why all the main Pallywood propagandists,
are either leftist bourgeoisie or Arab oligarchs
and where all that UNRWA money ends up?

 

[P F Tinmore]

the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?

Then whose is it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​

 

[Hollie]

the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?

Then whose is it?

Indeed, is there any territory that has been liberated by the PLO? Other than an organization that practically, exists only on stationary letterhead, what territory is the PLO actively attempting to liberate.

Indeed, if the PLO liberated territory, who would be the liberated'ee? This would assume that the PLO would be occupying territory and as we know, occupation doesn't equal ownership.

 

[Hollie]

The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​

There already is one state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?

Then whose is it?

Indeed, is there any territory that has been liberated by the PLO? Other than an organization that practically, exists only on stationary letterhead, what territory is the PLO actively attempting to liberate.

Indeed, if the PLO liberated territory, who would be the liberated'ee? This would assume that the PLO would be occupying territory and as we know, occupation doesn't equal ownership.

That wasn't the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​

There already is one state.

Indeed, an apartheid state where only half of the people have rights.

 

[Hollie]

the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

Are they implying that Palestinian territory that is not liberated is not Palestinian territory?

Then whose is it?

Indeed, is there any territory that has been liberated by the PLO? Other than an organization that practically, exists only on stationary letterhead, what territory is the PLO actively attempting to liberate.

Indeed, if the PLO liberated territory, who would be the liberated'ee? This would assume that the PLO would be occupying territory and as we know, occupation doesn't equal ownership.

That wasn't the question.

Link?

 

[Hollie]

The Great Debate - One State or Two: Is There A Solution?​

There already is one state.

Indeed, an apartheid state where only half of the people have rights.

Indeed, you parrot the 'apartheid'' slogan without understanding terms and definitions.

Indeed, ''an apartheid state where only half of the people have rights", is demonstrably false. Can you post a youtube video to support that claim or do I assume it to be just another false claim?