The Jews and the Native Americans

[P F Tinmore]

Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

Completely forgot about this site. This should clarify everything for you.

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,

Permanent not international.

Hmmm.

 

[toastman]

I don't really understand the connection between permanent and international

 

[Jroc]

the Jews take in their own

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSOa1u2pW1A"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSOa1u2pW1A[/ame]

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We have been over this treaty business many times before, a treaty is simply an agreement between the parties to the treaty and can only establish rights among those who are parties to the treaty. If a nation claims land they do not have sovereignty rights over in a treaty with another party, that agreement certainly does not operate to give that nation rights in land they do not have. Example, I will address Sheeba Farms. There apparently is a dispute over whether Syria or Lebanon have sovereignty rights in Sheeba Farms. And Israel occupies Sheeba Farms. If Israel entered into a treaty with either of those two nations and. relinquished Sheeba Farms to either and ended her Occupation, that treaty would only establish legal rights between the two nations a party to the treaty. It would not establish whether Syria or Lebanon had sovereignty rights to Sheeba Farms.

 

[RoccoR]

toastman; et al,

Yes, some people are often confused.

I don't really understand the connection between permanent and international

(COMMENT)

All "permanent boundaries" are "international boundaries." But not all "international boundaries" are "permanent."

When the UN calls a a boundary "permanent," the issue is closed; with no further recognized disputes having standing.

A "permanent boundary" has a higher order of legitimacy. Any "international boundary" which is under dispute for cause, may change (not permanent).

Oddly enough, one side of a boundary may be permanent, while the other side may not. And that has an example with the boundary that is between Israel and Jordan holding the intervention of the West Bank. Once the Occupation ends, the boundary will not change for Jordan, but the other side will change hands; possibly becoming permanent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

toastman; et al,

Yes, some people are often confused.

I don't really understand the connection between permanent and international

(COMMENT)

All "permanent boundaries" are "international boundaries." But not all "international boundaries" are "permanent."

When the UN calls a a boundary "permanent," the issue is closed; with no further recognized disputes having standing.

A "permanent boundary" has a higher order of legitimacy. Any "international boundary" which is under dispute for cause, may change (not permanent).

Oddly enough, one side of a boundary may be permanent, while the other side may not. And that has an example with the boundary that is between Israel and Jordan holding the intervention of the West Bank. Once the Occupation ends, the boundary will not change for Jordan, but the other side will change hands; possibly becoming permanent.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is simply opinions of a poster, there is no basis for these conclusions in intl law. If I am wrong about this, please reference the provisions in intl law that tell us this. The UN only has rights they have that intl law gives them. The UN Charter, for example, is itself a treaty.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Spanish*conquistadors*(conquerors) first arrived in the region now known as*Texas*in 1519, finding the region populated by various*Native American*tribes. During the period from 1519 to 1848, all or parts of Texas were claimed by six countries:*France,*Spain,*Mexico, the*Republic of Texas, the*United States of America—as well as the*Confederate States of America*in 1861–65.The first*European*base was established in 1682, when*René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salleestablished a French colony,*Fort Saint Louis, near*Matagorda Bay. The colony was killed off after three years, but its presence motivated Spanish authorities to begin activity. Several missions were established in*East Texas; they were abandoned in 1691. Twenty years later, concerned with the French presence in neighboring*Louisiana, Spanish authorities again attempted to colonize Texas. Over the next 110 years, Spain established numerous villages,presidios, and missions in the province. A small number of Spanish settlers arrived, in addition to missionaries and soldiers. Spain signed agreements with colonizers from the United States. When Mexico won its*independence from Spain in 1821,*Mexican Texas*was part of the new nation. To encourage settlement, Mexican authorities allowed organized immigration from the United States, and by 1834, over 30,000*Anglos lived in Texas,[1]*compared to only 7,800*Mexicans.[2]After Santa Anna's dissolution of the*Constitution of 1824, issues such as lack of access to courts, the militarization of the region's government (e.g., response to Saltillo-Monclova problem) and self-defense issues resulting in the confrontation in Gonzales, public sentiment turned towards revolution. Santa Anna's invasion of the territory after his putting down the rebellion in*Zacatecas*provoked the conflict of 1836. The*Texian forces*fought and won theTexas Revolution*in 1835–36. Texas now became an independent nation, the*Republic of Texas. Attracted by the rich cotton lands and ranch lands, tens of thousands of immigrants arrived from the U.S. and from Germany as well. In 1845, Texas*joined the United States,*" History of Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If Jordan is Palestine, Texas is Mexico.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"The area of Palestine under British administration, excluding Trans- jordania, is something over 9,000 square miles, with an estimated population (1922) of about 754,500. Of these about 583,000 are Moslems, 84,500 Christians, and 79,300 Jews. These figures do not include the garrison... The settled Arabs are of more mixed descent than the Beduin, and form the link between these and the Syrians, by whom we understand the descendants of all those peoples, other than the Jews, who spoke Aramaic at the beginning of the Christian era. Some of these have retained their Christianity, but the majority have in the course of ages embraced Islam. The Aramaic language, after holding its ground for a considerable time in Palestine and Syria, ultimately gave place to Arabic (though surviving among the Samaritans and, as regards Syrians, in three villages north-east of Damascus), and this process was facilitated by the continuous replenishment of Palestine and Syria from the tribes of the Arabian Desert. This Arab infiltration has created and maintains the specific racial character of the population. The distinction between the Arabs and the Syrians is now not so much racial as cultural. The Syrians are agriculturists and dwellers in towns, civilized, industrial, and of peaceful inclinations ; the Arabs are a pastoral people organized in tribes and with a natural tendency towards inter- tribal warfare. Palestine and Syria offer, on their eastern border, examples of every stage of transition from the nomad Beduin to the settled fellahin ; the Arab conquest of the eighth century was only the flood-tide of a continuous overflow from the desert into the cultivated land of the West. § 4. Circassians, Bosnians and Magharbeh." Full text of "The handbook of Palestine; edited by Harry Charles Luke and Edward Keith-Roach. With an introd. by Herbert Samuel"

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerly, et al,

Oddly enough, I've studied this book.

"The area of Palestine under British administration, excluding Trans- jordania, is something over 9,000 square miles, with an estimated population (1922) of about 754,500. Of these about 583,000 are Moslems, 84,500 Christians, and 79,300 Jews. These figures do not include the garrison... The settled Arabs are of more mixed descent than the Beduin, and form the link between these and the Syrians, by whom we understand the descendants of all those peoples, other than the Jews, who spoke Aramaic at the beginning of the Christian era. Some of these have retained their Christianity, but the majority have in the course of ages embraced Islam. The Aramaic language, after holding its ground for a considerable time in Palestine and Syria, ultimately gave place to Arabic (though surviving among the Samaritans and, as regards Syrians, in three villages north-east of Damascus), and this process was facilitated by the continuous replenishment of Palestine and Syria from the tribes of the Arabian Desert. This Arab infiltration has created and maintains the specific racial character of the population. The distinction between the Arabs and the Syrians is now not so much racial as cultural. The Syrians are agriculturists and dwellers in towns, civilized, industrial, and of peaceful inclinations ; the Arabs are a pastoral people organized in tribes and with a natural tendency towards inter- tribal warfare. Palestine and Syria offer, on their eastern border, examples of every stage of transition from the nomad Beduin to the settled fellahin ; the Arab conquest of the eighth century was only the flood-tide of a continuous overflow from the desert into the cultivated land of the West. § 4. Circassians, Bosnians and Magharbeh." Full text of "The handbook of Palestine; edited by Harry Charles Luke and Edward Keith-Roach. With an introd. by Herbert Samuel"

(COINCIDENCE)

Just by coincidence, at the very beginning of this book it says:

§ I. Introductory p

Palestine is bounded on the north by the French sphere of Syria, on the west by the Mediterranean, on the south by Egyptian and Hejaz territory, the boundary running from
a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to east of Taba at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, and then north-east. On the east is the territory of Trans-jordania, which is included in the area of the Palestine Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

toastman; et al,

Yes, some people are often confused.

I don't really understand the connection between permanent and international

(COMMENT)

All "permanent boundaries" are "international boundaries." But not all "international boundaries" are "permanent."

When the UN calls a a boundary "permanent," the issue is closed; with no further recognized disputes having standing.

A "permanent boundary" has a higher order of legitimacy. Any "international boundary" which is under dispute for cause, may change (not permanent).

Oddly enough, one side of a boundary may be permanent, while the other side may not. And that has an example with the boundary that is between Israel and Jordan holding the intervention of the West Bank. Once the Occupation ends, the boundary will not change for Jordan, but the other side will change hands; possibly becoming permanent.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is simply opinions of a poster, there is no basis for these conclusions in intl law. If I am wrong about this, please reference the provisions in intl law that tell us this. The UN only has rights they have that intl law gives them. The UN Charter, for example, is itself a treaty.

Are you asking for references concerning the borders of Israel?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Palestine and Transjordan were administered separately from the adoption of the Mandate in 1922. The terms of the Mandate itself specifies this.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

toastman; et al,

Yes, some people are often confused.


(COMMENT)

All "permanent boundaries" are "international boundaries." But not all "international boundaries" are "permanent."

When the UN calls a a boundary "permanent," the issue is closed; with no further recognized disputes having standing.

A "permanent boundary" has a higher order of legitimacy. Any "international boundary" which is under dispute for cause, may change (not permanent).

Oddly enough, one side of a boundary may be permanent, while the other side may not. And that has an example with the boundary that is between Israel and Jordan holding the intervention of the West Bank. Once the Occupation ends, the boundary will not change for Jordan, but the other side will change hands; possibly becoming permanent.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is simply opinions of a poster, there is no basis for these conclusions in intl law. If I am wrong about this, please reference the provisions in intl law that tell us this. The UN only has rights they have that intl law gives them. The UN Charter, for example, is itself a treaty.

Are you asking for references concerning the borders of Israel?

Can you read?

 

[toastman]

This is simply opinions of a poster, there is no basis for these conclusions in intl law. If I am wrong about this, please reference the provisions in intl law that tell us this. The UN only has rights they have that intl law gives them. The UN Charter, for example, is itself a treaty.

Are you asking for references concerning the borders of Israel?

Can you read?

Can you ? Rocco has provided you with indisputable evidence concerning the original British Mandate yet you still don't seem to comprehend .
I really don't know what you get out of denying denying and denying

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman; et al,

Yes, some people are often confused.

I don't really understand the connection between permanent and international

(COMMENT)

All "permanent boundaries" are "international boundaries." But not all "international boundaries" are "permanent."

When the UN calls a a boundary "permanent," the issue is closed; with no further recognized disputes having standing.

A "permanent boundary" has a higher order of legitimacy. Any "international boundary" which is under dispute for cause, may change (not permanent).

Oddly enough, one side of a boundary may be permanent, while the other side may not. And that has an example with the boundary that is between Israel and Jordan holding the intervention of the West Bank. Once the Occupation ends, the boundary will not change for Jordan, but the other side will change hands; possibly becoming permanent.

Most Respectfully,
R

A "permanent boundary" has a higher order of legitimacy.

Link?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

SherriMunnerly, et al,

Oddly enough, I've studied this book.

"The area of Palestine under British administration, excluding Trans- jordania, is something over 9,000 square miles, with an estimated population (1922) of about 754,500. Of these about 583,000 are Moslems, 84,500 Christians, and 79,300 Jews. These figures do not include the garrison... The settled Arabs are of more mixed descent than the Beduin, and form the link between these and the Syrians, by whom we understand the descendants of all those peoples, other than the Jews, who spoke Aramaic at the beginning of the Christian era. Some of these have retained their Christianity, but the majority have in the course of ages embraced Islam. The Aramaic language, after holding its ground for a considerable time in Palestine and Syria, ultimately gave place to Arabic (though surviving among the Samaritans and, as regards Syrians, in three villages north-east of Damascus), and this process was facilitated by the continuous replenishment of Palestine and Syria from the tribes of the Arabian Desert. This Arab infiltration has created and maintains the specific racial character of the population. The distinction between the Arabs and the Syrians is now not so much racial as cultural. The Syrians are agriculturists and dwellers in towns, civilized, industrial, and of peaceful inclinations ; the Arabs are a pastoral people organized in tribes and with a natural tendency towards inter- tribal warfare. Palestine and Syria offer, on their eastern border, examples of every stage of transition from the nomad Beduin to the settled fellahin ; the Arab conquest of the eighth century was only the flood-tide of a continuous overflow from the desert into the cultivated land of the West. § 4. Circassians, Bosnians and Magharbeh." Full text of "The handbook of Palestine; edited by Harry Charles Luke and Edward Keith-Roach. With an introd. by Herbert Samuel"

(COINCIDENCE)

Just by coincidence, at the very beginning of this book it says:

§ I. Introductory p

Palestine is bounded on the north by the French sphere of Syria, on the west by the Mediterranean, on the south by Egyptian and Hejaz territory, the boundary running from
a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to east of Taba at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, and then north-east. On the east is the territory of Trans-jordania, which is included in the area of the Palestine Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sherri, your own document says that Palestine was continuously replenished by tribes from the Arabian desert. In other words, the residents of Palestine came from Arabia, and not just once, but many times. They are not descendants of Canaanites or Philistines, but recent foreigners from Arabia. The document even uses the word "infiltrated".

 

[toastman]

Sherri, your continuous denial makes you look like a 10 year old

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

People have moved in and out of Palestine since the time of Herodotus. And various movements of peoples have impacted the customs and religions of the indigenous people there. That book says little more than that. Response to Post 375

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Are you asking for references concerning the borders of Israel?

Can you read?

Can you ? Rocco has provided you with indisputable evidence concerning the original British Mandate yet you still don't seem to comprehend .
I really don't know what you get out of denying denying and denying

Learn to read and read Article 25 of the Mandate.

 

[toastman]

I read it. It does not disprove that Transjordan was PART of the original mandate. I asked you to google 'original british mandate' and go to images, then report to us what you learned

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Actually, Article 25 works in my favor.

Can you read?

Can you ? Rocco has provided you with indisputable evidence concerning the original British Mandate yet you still don't seem to comprehend .
I really don't know what you get out of denying denying and denying

Learn to read and read Article 25 of the Mandate.

(REFERENCE)

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

(COMMENT)

The "territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine" describes the Emirate of TransJordan.

The phrase, "with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations" means that it is not free to act autonomously.

The phrase "no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18" stipulates what portions of the Mandate apply and which don't.​

Clearly, some portions of the Mandate of Palestine apply, even if you read Article 25 as a standalone document (which it is not).

Most Respectfully,
R