The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Phoenall]

It's so cute when you chest-heaving short boys pretend to be internet tough guys.

I never thought quoting international law was macho, but hey, whatever hydrates your sugar walls...

But you haven't quoted International law have you, you just made a false statement. So care to QUOTE this international law giving details and were it can be found

 

[Phoenall]

Under which international law, give details as in the law, the date implemented and where it states Palestine specifically. It has to predate the Balfour declaration and the mandate for Palestine to be valid.

 

[Phoenall]

Under which international law, give details as in the law, the date implemented and where it states Palestine specifically. It has to predate the Balfour declaration and the mandate for Palestine to be valid.

 

[Phoenall]

Bottom line is, you can grasp at straws if you want, but the ship declared that they were going to break through the blockade.

It doesn't matter what bullshit excuse you try to use, YOU CANNOT STOP A SHIP IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS! PERIOD!

Under what law, give details and a link ?

 

[Phoenall]

You cant retrospectively use 21C international law to deal with something you don't like that happened in the 20C. If we could then the First nations people, South American Indians, Australian aborigines and J could demand Jews could demand their lands back and the eviction of the invaders. So it would be goodbye to the "Americans", "Mexicans", "Australians" and arab muslims who would have to be deported to other lands.

 

[Phoenall]

Oh my, Loinboy. In spite of your inability to compose coherent sentences, don't let your short stature be such an impediment to your lewd, crude behavior.

The next Islamo-flotilla will be no more a publicity stunt than the last.

Not if they send the right kind of ship...





...you stupid *****.

See you fantasise about what things would be like if you Jew haters ruled the world, but forget that Hitler tried that and was found dead. Now do tell the board WHY YOU HATE THE JEWS, as we keep telling you how your hatred manifests itself

 

[Billo_Really]

Excuse me I meant I Billshit.

Well, alrighty then!

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong read the maritime laws again in regards to smuggling, gun running and other suspected illegal crimes on the high seas

Why don't you post the maritime law that say's you can?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

 

[Phoenall]

Wrong read the maritime laws again in regards to smuggling, gun running and other suspected illegal crimes on the high seas

Why don't you post the maritime law that say's you can?

because you are the one that says they prohibit such actions, so it is up to you to prove it. Or have you read them and seen that you can stop a vessel on the high seas suspected of smuggling and/or gun running

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948,​

Link?

Of course not. Just blabber.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948,​

Link?

Of course not. Just blabber.

Given you the details and they show that the Palestinians have never been capable of free determination or statehood. Now you want links to the Mandate of Palestine, the Cairo based all palestinian government that acted for gaza alone, the annexing of the west bank, the failure to carry forward the declaration of independence by negotiating borders.

Why don't you learn to read English then you could be able to educate yourself

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948,​

Link?

Of course not. Just blabber.

Given you the details and they show that the Palestinians have never been capable of free determination or statehood. Now you want links to the Mandate of Palestine, the Cairo based all palestinian government that acted for gaza alone, the annexing of the west bank, the failure to carry forward the declaration of independence by negotiating borders.

Why don't you learn to read English then you could be able to educate yourself

Still no link?

Deflection.

 

[Billo_Really]

because you are the one that says they prohibit such actions, so it is up to you to prove it. Or have you read them and seen that you can stop a vessel on the high seas suspected of smuggling and/or gun running

**** you, troll! You don't have a god-damn clue as to what you're talking about.

Maritime Law, is as follows:

PART VII

HIGH SEAS

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 88
Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.​

Stopping a humanitarian aid vessel, is not peaceful.


Article 89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.​

Which means, Israel cannot subject a flotilla ship, to its sovereignty.


Article 90
Right of navigation

Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas.​

Which means, Israel has no right to stop any ship flying the flag of a sovereign nation.


These are the only reasons you can stop a ship on the high seas...

Article 110
Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.​

And unfortunately for little pieces of shit like you, the flotilla ships are doing none of the above.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948,​

Link?

Of course not. Just blabber.

No change there. Ignore him, he's just a neo-nazi internet troll; not worth the effort.

 

[Hollie]

because you are the one that says they prohibit such actions, so it is up to you to prove it. Or have you read them and seen that you can stop a vessel on the high seas suspected of smuggling and/or gun running

**** you, troll! You don't have a god-damn clue as to what you're talking about.

Maritime Law, is as follows:

PART VII

HIGH SEAS

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 88
Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.​

Stopping a humanitarian aid vessel, is not peaceful.


Article 89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.​

Which means, Israel cannot subject a flotilla ship, to its sovereignty.


Article 90
Right of navigation

Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas.​

Which means, Israel has no right to stop any ship flying the flag of a sovereign nation.


These are the only reasons you can stop a ship on the high seas...

Article 110
Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.​

And unfortunately for little pieces of shit like you, the flotilla ships are doing none of the above.

I'm afraid, angry little short man, that your screeching has served no purpose.

These phony publicity stunts entitled as aid flotillas are pointless and time wasting.

The ‘humanitarian aid’ aboard a recent flotilla to Gaza fit in two cardboard boxes

The humanitarian aid aboard a recent flotilla to Gaza fit in two cardboard boxes - The Washington Post

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948,​

Link?

Of course not. Just blabber.

Given you the details and they show that the Palestinians have never been capable of free determination or statehood. Now you want links to the Mandate of Palestine, the Cairo based all palestinian government that acted for gaza alone, the annexing of the west bank, the failure to carry forward the declaration of independence by negotiating borders.

Why don't you learn to read English then you could be able to educate yourself

Still no link?

Deflection.

Link to what that is not already common knowledge.

You are the deflecting because you know that what I wrote is true, and you cant argue against it.

here goes


The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank History Today

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

because you are the one that says they prohibit such actions, so it is up to you to prove it. Or have you read them and seen that you can stop a vessel on the high seas suspected of smuggling and/or gun running

**** you, troll! You don't have a god-damn clue as to what you're talking about.

Maritime Law, is as follows:

PART VII

HIGH SEAS

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 88
Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.​

Stopping a humanitarian aid vessel, is not peaceful.


Article 89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.​

Which means, Israel cannot subject a flotilla ship, to its sovereignty.


Article 90
Right of navigation

Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas.​

Which means, Israel has no right to stop any ship flying the flag of a sovereign nation.


These are the only reasons you can stop a ship on the high seas...

Article 110
Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.​

And unfortunately for little pieces of shit like you, the flotilla ships are doing none of the above.

And reading further we see this under Maritime law


Article111

Right of hot pursuit

1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.

4. Hot pursuit is not deemed to have begun unless the pursuing ship has satisfied itself by such practicable means as may be available that the ship pursued or one of its boats or other craft working as a team and using the ship pursued as a mother ship is within the limits of the territorial sea, or, as the case may be, within the contiguous zone or the exclusive economic zone or above the continental shelf. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.

5. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- Without regard for your interpretation of what the CEIRPP DPR Study says (remembering that it is only a study), history actually shows us that the Arab Palestinian did not actually have sovereignty in either 1922, 1948, or 1967. It is even questionable if they had the "right to sovereignty," as the Westphalia Compact did not apply to situation such as the Mandate Territories.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

While it is theoretically true that a people can have the "right to self-determination," which if successful --- could leaded to the conditions which would allow the "right of sovereignty," --- in the practical world ---- a non-self governing territory the people only have (if the situation permits) the potential for self-determination and sovereignty.

The CEIRPP DPR Study says: "violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine." That assumes that the People of Palestine had self-government. In order to have sovereignty, you first have-to have a land to be sovereign over. In this case, in the Treaty of Lausanne [to which the Arab Palestinian (the People of Palestine) were not party] clearly stated:

ARTICLE I6

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Just as the Unconditional Surrender made through the Armistice of Mudros said:

ARTICLE 16

XVI.—Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
​

As we've seen in the reality of history, looking back, the People of Palestine get nothing that the benevolent Allied Powers did not grant them. In 1975, by its Resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), which was the author of the Study of the same name: "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988," published afterwards --- attempts to attach late 20th Century concepts to a problem set that emerged 45 years before the concept of self-determination legally became effective.

4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in theÅland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5).
SOURCE: Self-Determination, by Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Encyclopedia Entries Article last updated December 2008, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.

Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920 ​

Since that time, the evolution of the principles to these right has transitioned from the abstract to the more concrete in the form of recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in 1976; provides:

Article 1 Paragraph 1:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

AGAIN: You cannot (as the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) points out in the advisory opinion above) apply the contemporary Covenant of 1976 to a 1922 problem or that of a 1948 problem. "However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are trying to smokescreen the core issues. All peoples have a standard list of inherent, inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Those rights were invoked constantly by the Palestinians and other Arab states all through the Mandate Period.

Those rights were mentioned in legal correspondents of the times.

UN resolutions specifically state that Palestinians have those rights and that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions.

I would conclude that there is nothing in Palestine's history that altered or negated those rights.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948, so making your attempt at clouding the issue a failure. From 1923 the "Palestinians" have been ruled by outside influence in the form of arab nationalists from other nations. They gave up the right to independence and sovereignty in 1948 when they allowed Jordan and Egypt to take control of their lands. They have constantly refused to negotiate any territorial integrity and blame it on everyone else.

Those rights could not exist before the date of the resolutions if no one was aware of those rights, if they do then you will be forced to leave America under the same laws and have to live in airports for the rest of your life.

And all 3 have been given up by the Palestinians themselves since 1948,​

Link?

Of course not. Just blabber.

No change there. Ignore him, he's just a neo-nazi internet troll; not worth the effort.

Rat boy has spoken, and as usual does not know what he is speaking about