The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,248
Reaction score
1,773
Points
290
You need to reread my post.
Eyeroll

Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
:eusa_doh:

I can't help you if you miss the point.
Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly. Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
Palestinians in politics and other fields.


And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.

Oh, please. You have got to be kidding me. You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.

That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.

You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?

BTW, my grandfather was Scottish. :clap2: :clap2::clap2:
Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.

The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
Um. There is no other Arab Palestinian government anywhere in the world. There is no "would" here. The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective. It is not.
Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective. It is not responsible and can not meet its requirements and obligations.

We are not discussing what "might be" or "what the government might look like, if it was different, or run by different people". We are discussing what IS. You know, that which exists in reality.

I asked you simply for evidence that the Arab Palestinian government was acting responsibly. You clearly can not provide that, so have gone off on this weird tangent fantasy land where Palestine is governed by Americans.
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
You need to reread my post.
Eyeroll

Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
:eusa_doh:

I can't help you if you miss the point.
Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly. Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
Palestinians in politics and other fields.


And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.

Oh, please. You have got to be kidding me. You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.

That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.

You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?

BTW, my grandfather was Scottish. :clap2: :clap2::clap2:
Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.

The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
Um. There is no other Arab Palestinian government anywhere in the world. There is no "would" here. The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective. It is not.
Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
Palestine is a European Christian name for Jews’ homeland and was Britain’s name for the British Mandate, which became Israel. Jews were called palestinians—These are made-up Western names. ⤵

E13366E5-B4D5-40B0-BEBE-8A6C1F083C62.jpeg
D139A436-0D79-486A-87A0-393D1A9DE85A.jpeg
53156D2F-BD9B-47A3-BDF7-B1DAF2E5649A.jpeg
 
Last edited:

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,900
Reaction score
2,519
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.

Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
(COMMENT)

In general, we call this
(apply) by the name: Environmental Psychology. Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.

The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences. The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley (AKA: Shanghai) in Moscow, and
Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people. Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.

An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other. They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.

My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that. Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
(Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)

This is the impact that the environment has on people. If you cannot recognize that, then there is
(probably) nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,471
Reaction score
2,443
Points
1,815
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.

Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
(COMMENT)

In general, we call this
(apply) by the name: Environmental Psychology. Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.

The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences. The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley (AKA: Shanghai) in Moscow, and
Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people. Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.

An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other. They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.

My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that. Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
(Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)

This is the impact that the environment has on people. If you cannot recognize that, then there is (probably) nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.

Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
(COMMENT)

In general, we call this
(apply) by the name: Environmental Psychology. Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.

The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences. The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley (AKA: Shanghai) in Moscow, and
Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people. Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.

An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other. They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.

My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that. Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
(Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)

This is the impact that the environment has on people. If you cannot recognize that, then there is (probably) nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
Palestine was merely Britain’s fake name for the British Mandate, which became Israel. It originated as a fake Roman name imposed on Jews. Jews were called palestinians. There wasn’t a palestine in the Ottoman Empire. Palestine, palestinian are made-up European names...

94454CC8-6FC3-41C8-B2A0-2EEE4BF26DE3.jpeg
0F2FB36A-5FF0-4A92-9608-E8F3C5913685.jpeg
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
11,776
Reaction score
2,103
Points
290
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​
Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
1924
Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4


States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

You always claim that military power negates rights.
:eusa_doh: :poop:
And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read: Anglo-American Convention of 1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,471
Reaction score
2,443
Points
1,815
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​
Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
1924
Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4


States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

You always claim that military power negates rights.
:eusa_doh: :poop:
And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read: Anglo-American Convention of 1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
11,776
Reaction score
2,103
Points
290
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​
Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
1924
Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4


States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

You always claim that military power negates rights.
:eusa_doh: :poop:
And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read: Anglo-American Convention of 1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
And yet your whole narrative of a Pali state,
is based on and born out of this foreign intervention,
even the flags the Arabs wave were drawn by a British officer.
Not to mention, the word 'Palestine' literally means 'foreign intervention'.

What you support totally contradicts what you say.
And that is how useful idiots are baked.

 
Last edited:

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​
Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
1924
Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4


States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

You always claim that military power negates rights.
:eusa_doh: :poop:
And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read: Anglo-American Convention of 1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
Who are the foreign interventionists?


7D37C879-D8F9-4003-AED1-FFDD253C84CF.jpeg
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.

Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
(COMMENT)

In general, we call this
(apply) by the name: Environmental Psychology. Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.

The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences. The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley (AKA: Shanghai) in Moscow, and
Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people. Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.

An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other. They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.

My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that. Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
(Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)

This is the impact that the environment has on people. If you cannot recognize that, then there is (probably) nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
Jews are the indigenous people, birdbrain. Israel dates back to antiquity.

Jesus is called King Of Israel in the Bible...

5963A22F-CB11-4DDD-B879-B6D5C646563D.jpeg
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​
Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
1924
Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4


States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

You always claim that military power negates rights.
:eusa_doh: :poop:
And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read: Anglo-American Convention of 1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
And yet your whole narrative of a Pali state,
is based on and born out of this foreign intervention,
even the flags the Arabs wave were drawn by a British officer.
Not to mention, the word 'Palestine' literally means 'foreign intervention'.

What you support totally contradicts what you say.
And that is how useful idiots are baked.

Flag of palestine is a modified flag of Jordan. Jordan was created by Britain, named for a river, not a people. Not very authentic.
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
(COMMENT)

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar (just a few examples).
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives (which are what we are discussing).
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​
Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
Sovereignty
‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​
order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​

I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning. But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
1924
Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------

ARTICLE 4


States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

You always claim that military power negates rights.
:eusa_doh: :poop:
And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read: Anglo-American Convention of 1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
Britain literally created palestine, genius....

789C9AAF-263C-4D05-A994-F9090AA1B9DE.jpeg
 
Last edited:

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,900
Reaction score
2,519
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Environmental Psychology NOT Israeli Aggression

Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
(COMMENT)

There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques. And in no topic can you find more of the
асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl. This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers. The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children. This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.
Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.
This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility. The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence. And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,471
Reaction score
2,443
Points
1,815
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Environmental Psychology NOT Israeli Aggression

Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
(COMMENT)

There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques. And in no topic can you find more of the
асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl. This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers. The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children. This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility. The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence. And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Is colonization an aggression?
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Environmental Psychology NOT Israeli Aggression

Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
(COMMENT)

There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques. And in no topic can you find more of the
асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl. This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers. The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children. This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility. The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence. And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Is colonization an aggression?
Arabs and Muslims colonizing Jews’ homeland.
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Environmental Psychology NOT Israeli Aggression

Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
(COMMENT)

There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques. And in no topic can you find more of the
асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl. This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers. The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children. This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility. The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence. And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Is colonization an aggression?
Who’s colonizing whom, bright eyes? Jewish synagogue in Syria centuries before the first mosque...
Dura-Europos: Excavating Antiquity | Yale University Art Gallery
 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Environmental Psychology NOT Israeli Aggression

Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
(COMMENT)

There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques. And in no topic can you find more of the
асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl. This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers. The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children. This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility. The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence. And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
The idiot has been posting for 11+ years about palestine, 58,000+ posts, except palestine originated as a fictional Roman name for ancient Israel and was Britain’s adopted fictional name for the British Mandate which became modern Israel. Palestine is a Western invention.

There never has been a place palestine founded by Arabs, “palestinians“ (Arabs), Muslims, or any Middle Eastern people.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,900
Reaction score
2,519
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Key" to answering this question is
UNDERSTANDING the definitions of the words.
As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,

SHORT ANSWER: NO!

Is colonization an aggression?
(DEFINITIONS)

Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.

Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​
Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
colony

The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system. Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of

the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General

Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights

and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.
(COMMENT)

So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907. By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict. The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel. The action by the Arab League constituted "prima facie evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel). This conflict did not end (relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) until 1994 (1979 with Egypt) with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan. This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

◈ After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​
◈ It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression (Article 3g A/RES/3314) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,471
Reaction score
2,443
Points
1,815
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Key" to answering this question is
UNDERSTANDING the definitions of the words.
As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,

SHORT ANSWER: NO!

Is colonization an aggression?
(DEFINITIONS)

Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.

Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​


Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
colony

The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system. Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of

the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General

Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights

and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.

(COMMENT)
So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907. By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict. The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel. The action by the Arab League constituted "prima facie evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel). This conflict did not end (relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) until 1994 (1979 with Egypt) with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan. This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.​
◈ After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​
◈ It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression (Article 3g A/RES/3314) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Who writes your shit? Israel? :cuckoo: :cuckoo::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

MartyNYC

Gold Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
524
Reaction score
201
Points
143
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Key" to answering this question is
UNDERSTANDING the definitions of the words.
As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,

SHORT ANSWER: NO!

Is colonization an aggression?
(DEFINITIONS)

Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.

Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​


Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
colony

The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system. Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of

the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General

Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights

and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.

(COMMENT)
So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907. By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict. The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel. The action by the Arab League constituted "prima facie evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel). This conflict did not end (relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) until 1994 (1979 with Egypt) with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan. This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.​
◈ After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​
◈ It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression (Article 3g A/RES/3314) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Who writes your shit? Israel? :cuckoo: :cuckoo::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Encyclopedia Of Islam: Roman colonists invent palestine on Jews’ homeland. Later, Arabs and Muslims colonize Jews’ homeland. Palestine is Jews’ country.


8477EDF4-3D3F-4815-B6B9-A65B7661D0B0.jpeg
3531D27E-D926-4517-98E8-C65E30D0764A.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top