What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?

[P F Tinmore]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

I still say it was won, because there was also plentiful bloodshed leading up to it's final birth. Won/Established - I am not sure there is a difference here.

It is illegal to win territory by war.

 

[Coyote]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

I still say it was won, because there was also plentiful bloodshed leading up to it's final birth. Won/Established - I am not sure there is a difference here.

It is illegal to win territory by war.

They didn't win it entirely by war - they won it in a manner no different than Jordan and the other Arab states.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

I still say it was won, because there was also plentiful bloodshed leading up to it's final birth. Won/Established - I am not sure there is a difference here.

It is illegal to win territory by war.

It is illegal to win territory by war.

Exactly!

That's why Germany still controls East Prussia, West Prussia and East Brandenburg.

 

[USAF 2023]

The only territory that Israel established was what formed it's state when it won it's independence. It established its borders at that time.

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

What is happening now is an attempt to rewrite all that.

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

When it came to San Remo and the Mandate - RoccoR explained it well but I can't find the threads, they were too far back.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

I still say it was won, because there was also plentiful bloodshed leading up to it's final birth. Won/Established - I am not sure there is a difference here.

It is illegal to win territory by war.

Wrong; Israel didn’t initiate War

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel didn't 'win' its independence. It formed its independence by peaceful and legal means by the relevant treaties. Just as all the other states did at the time. It was immediately attacked by States which had no sovereignty outside their own borders. Right? We agree that's a no-no.

So Israel's borders were invaded and crossed immediately by foreign States. So how, exactly did she establish her borders?

It's an attempt to CORRECT the false ideas people hold.

You don't need to find them for me. I'm well aware of all Rocco's arguments since we largely share them.

The point being that this is a civil war happening within one territory. There is no border which divides Israel and Palestine. Therefore we can not definitively say where the border will end up. That's why it's a dispute and not an occupation. And both peoples in the meantime have the right to live anywhere within that undivided territory.

What was peaceful about bombing the King David Hotel?

That is a cheap shot at a long detailed post.

I didn't say that there was no fighting or military action. There was. We both know it. But Israel was established through treaty and legal means. Just as all the other states at the time were. It wasn't won. It was created through hard work and appropriate steps. Then it had to be fought over and reclaimed.

I still say it was won, because there was also plentiful bloodshed leading up to it's final birth. Won/Established - I am not sure there is a difference here.

It is illegal to win territory by war.

Wrong; Israel didn’t initiate War

Wrong; It doesn't matter.

BTW, it did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

It was inside Palestinian territory,

No such thing.

 

[rylah]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

The whole Arab shtick was run by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians and the Arab league.
They march under the flag of the 4 Caliphates, their charter clearly states they're foreign occupiers, and their name means just that.

So what's You'r point, can I call their presence an act of war "From The River To The Sea"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

The whole Arab shtick was run by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians and the Arab league.
They march under the flag of the 4 Caliphates, their charter clearly states they're foreign occupiers, and their name means just that.

So what's You'r point, can I call their presence an act of war "From The River To The Sea"?

Palestine was run by the British. The Mandate commenced about two months after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. There had to be a Palestine before Britain could be the Mandate for Palestine. And it was still Palestine after the Mandate left.

 

[there4eyeM]

This is primarily a question for Team Palestine.

"From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free". What does this mean to you? How will we know that Palestine is free? What are the conditions which much be met?

Ok. I will bite.

To me it means that we have to first define what it means to be free. To me it means freedom from oppressive rule, a representative form of government, a recognition of basic rights and freedoms: freedom to worship, travel, speak and a free media. It neans equality of fundamental rights across the population.

In regards to Palestine, it means and end to ambiguosly governed territories where a segment of the population resides under military law and the under the far more rights conscious civil law.

It means that those territories either become fully autonomous or they become fully Istaeli with complete and equal citizenship for all residents in either case, and a constitutional protection for the freedom of minorities.

"...we have to first define what it means to be free...".
Precisely.

 

[Hollie]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

The whole Arab shtick was run by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians and the Arab league.
They march under the flag of the 4 Caliphates, their charter clearly states they're foreign occupiers, and their name means just that.

So what's You'r point, can I call their presence an act of war "From The River To The Sea"?

Palestine was run by the British. The Mandate commenced about two months after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. There had to be a Palestine before Britain could be the Mandate for Palestine. And it was still Palestine after the Mandate left.

Indeed, there was a loosely defined geographic area known as “Palestine”, a former sanjak of the Ottoman Empire.

Indeed, there was never a Magical Kingdom or “country of Pal’istan” no matter how many times you click the heels of your magic slippers together and wish it to be true.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

I would be interested in knowing what "War" P F Tinmore believes Israel started.

Wrong; Israel didn’t initiate War

Wrong; It doesn't matter.
BTW, it did.

(COMMENT)

The various conflicts over in the Middle East, are a dime a dozen. They start and stop almost by magic. So, you have to discuss which particular conflict (War) you are referring.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

Yeah, the problem here is that our language has not yet evolved to cover some of these situations. Just as new types of situation come about for which there is no specific law.[/quote

It isn’t an argument of rights of self-determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another.

(COMMENT)

All peoples have the Right to Self-Determination.

Well, that is all debatable. Because Area "C" is, by Arab Palestinian agreement, under civil and security control of the Israelis, there is a negative impact on sovereignty. That means that it cannot be sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. Why? Because to have territorial sovereignty the Arab Palestinians must be able to exercise full control, to the exclusion of Israel or any other power (organizational or national).

Now, can that change? Yes, there is a Resolution of Disputes Process (which covers both Oslo Accords) which the Arab Palestinians have never taken advantage. → AND → The entire issue of "settlements are covered under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations" which was agreed to by both sides. Article V(3) of Oslo Accord One says in part:

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:

◈ Jerusalem,
◈ refugees,
◈ settlement,
◈ security arrangements,
◈ borders,
◈ relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
◈ and other issues of common interest.
​

Neither side has really wanted to exercise negotiations for differing reasons. But the mechanism for a solution has been there for all these problems for decades.

The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self-determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

There is no limitation on the number of times the "Right of Self-Determination" can be exercised. Why? Because it is undefined and effects the outcome of the various national struggles shifting of boundaries, and the means used to establish territory.

...self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers.
---------------------------
Unfortunately, turning to international legal standards on the right to self-determination does not resolve the problem, since the right has never been explicitly defined.
--------------------------
US policy interests in the self-determination debate beg a preliminary question: What exactly does the United States care about with regard to self-determination movements—the outcome of the struggle (i.e., the shifting of boundaries and the proliferation of states) or the means used to obtain it (i.e., the violence that frequently accompanies such struggles)? Unfortunately, American diplomacy often cannot decide between these two interests, making a response that much more difficult to formulate. Generally, though, the United States should be less concerned about outcomes in these struggles than about the means used; international political stability is more likely to be maintained by
focusing on the process than by trying to manipulate events to arrange a predetermined outcome.
SOURCE: • Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Right to Secession • by Patricia Carley - US Institute for Peace - A Report from the Roundtable Held in Conjunctions with the US Department of State.

​

Having said that, the US will take what measures are appropriate if US Interests are involved. As will all the Major Powers; and sometimes attempts by would be power (ie North Korea, Iran) to see how far they can go.

Now hold on a minute. Are the rights on hold in Area C or is Area C land illegally captured in war by Israel and rightfully belonging to someone else?

In other words, is the land disputed or is it occupied? You are making both arguments here and I want to know which you hold to.

(COMMENT)

That is because in any new realm of law, arguments like these undefined matters can be argued from a number of different directions. If it were as cut'n'dry as some make it out to be, it would have been resolved already...

There is the rule of "successive approximations." But at some point, the next approximation becomes insignificant.

One more point: Language like "captured in war" is of no value; no value at all. Why? Because the questions arise as to whether is was captured by the "Aggressor" of "Defender." And war is not the Customary and IHL term. It is either an international armed conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). And sometimes different rules and interpretations apply. And, most International Laws are questionable in the case of a NIAC because of the very nature in the intent of: What is an NAIC? This becomes important when you consider that: "Nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

This is what the military calls political tanglefoot.

Most Respectfully,
R

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

The whole Arab shtick was run by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians and the Arab league.
They march under the flag of the 4 Caliphates, their charter clearly states they're foreign occupiers, and their name means just that.

So what's You'r point, can I call their presence an act of war "From The River To The Sea"?

Palestine was run by the British. The Mandate commenced about two months after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. There had to be a Palestine before Britain could be the Mandate for Palestine. And it was still Palestine after the Mandate left.

That Palestine was clearly vested with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation.
How Britain acted upon that obligation is a whole issue in itself, but the Israeli govt was already a fully functional state independent in many key aspects from the mandate, minus declaration already by 1939. It was the only functional local govt.

When the British left, Israel became independent.
Arabs on the other hand attempted to give the land to either the King of Mecca or declare independence under the Egyptian rule, so what does it tell us about that fiction of an independent "non-foreign" Arab Palestine that You imagine?

 

[rylah]

P F Tinmore still waiting for the answer to my question in post #149

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you have to be more specific.

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

(COMMENT)

The control of the territory, formerly under the Mandate, came under the control of the Allied Powers (specifically the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force) as a consequence of The Great War (WWI). The Titile and Rights were rendered under Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne. The Title and Rights passed directly from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic → to → the Allied Powers. By agreement between the Allied Powers, the territory, known as Palestine, was entrusted to the British within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. The Allied Powers determined the short-term destiny of the territory which was never passed to the Arab (Palestinians).

Having said that, the following questions arise from your statement:

※ "It was inside Palestinian territory,

⟴ The Allied Powers, determined the boundaries of the Territory under Mandate.
⟴ The territory only had the delineated shape and size, because that was determined by the Allied Powers.
⟴ It would have been impossible for the Arab Palestinains to have any sovern control over a bound territory before it was delineated by the Allied Powers.​

※ "the attack was by a foreign power."

⟴ The British were not, as of the Treaty of Lausanne, a "foreign power." The Allied Powers had control, title and rights to the territory passed to them by the previous sovereign power. The Allied Powers, cannot be a "foreign power" (in the sense you are using the terminology, and specifically relative to the Arab Palestinian) if they hold the complete control, title and rights over the territory, anymore than the Ottoman/Turks were as the previous sovern power.
⟴ The Arab Palestinians are only called "Palestinians" because that was the name used by the Allied Powers.
⟴ The Arab Palestinians could not decide citizenship issues, because that was a decision rendered by the Allied Powers.
⟴ The Allied Powers maintained full powers of legislation and of administration (authority to make and enforce laws) over the territory.
​

Virtually nothing of any political leadership substance, to include foreign relations, was a product of the Arab Palestinians. Now you can claim that all this still does not reach the level of a sovereign authority. OK... But that means that the Arab Palestinian, which had not one scrap of authority, could not possibly decide who was a "foreign power" and who was not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

This is so wrong -- so, so wrong...

Palestine was run by the British. The Mandate commenced about two months after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. There had to be a Palestine before Britain could be the Mandate for Palestine. And it was still Palestine after the Mandate left.

(COMMENT)

The Territory was defined by the PalestineOrder in Council (10 August 1922).

Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

• C. 529. M. 314. 1922. VI. 12 August 1922 •
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval;

Now as you can see, the Order in Council was dated two days before the Mandate in August 1922. The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923, almost a year after.

NOW an odd piece of trivia... But since you brought it up...
The Mandate was actually:

Done at the Nineteenth Session of the Council
Thirteenth Meeting
Held at St James' Palace, London on July 24th, 1922, at 3.p.m
​

Where as the Palestine Order in Council was:

Given at Our Court at Saint James's this Fourteenth day of
August, 1922, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you have to be more specific.

So when the Arab Palestinians argue that the territory, formerly under the Mandate, was their territory, then you are talking about a conflict within a "domestic jurisdiction."

It was inside Palestinian territory, but the attack was by a foreign power. The whole Zionist shtick was run by foreign powers.

(COMMENT)

The control of the territory, formerly under the Mandate, came under the control of the Allied Powers (specifically the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force) as a consequence of The Great War (WWI). The Titile and Rights were rendered under Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne. The Title and Rights passed directly from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic → to → the Allied Powers. By agreement between the Allied Powers, the territory, known as Palestine, was entrusted to the British within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. The Allied Powers determined the short-term destiny of the territory which was never passed to the Arab (Palestinians).

Having said that, the following questions arise from your statement:

※ "It was inside Palestinian territory,

⟴ The Allied Powers, determined the boundaries of the Territory under Mandate.
⟴ The territory only had the delineated shape and size, because that was determined by the Allied Powers.
⟴ It would have been impossible for the Arab Palestinains to have any sovern control over a bound territory before it was delineated by the Allied Powers.​

※ "the attack was by a foreign power."

⟴ The British were not, as of the Treaty of Lausanne, a "foreign power." The Allied Powers had control, title and rights to the territory passed to them by the previous sovereign power. The Allied Powers, cannot be a "foreign power" (in the sense you are using the terminology, and specifically relative to the Arab Palestinian) if they hold the complete control, title and rights over the territory, anymore than the Ottoman/Turks were as the previous sovern power.
⟴ The Arab Palestinians are only called "Palestinians" because that was the name used by the Allied Powers.
⟴ The Arab Palestinians could not decide citizenship issues, because that was a decision rendered by the Allied Powers.
⟴ The Allied Powers maintained full powers of legislation and of administration (authority to make and enforce laws) over the territory.
​

Virtually nothing of any political leadership substance, to include foreign relations, was a product of the Arab Palestinians. Now you can claim that all this still does not reach the level of a sovereign authority. OK... But that means that the Arab Palestinian, which had not one scrap of authority, could not possibly decide who was a "foreign power" and who was not.

Most Respectfully,
R

The control of the territory, formerly under the Mandate, came under the control of the Allied Powers (specifically the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force) as a consequence of The Great War (WWI). The Titile and Rights were rendered under Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne. The Title and Rights passed directly from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic → to → the Allied Powers.

Not true. Here again you base your conclusions on false premise.

The land, nationality, and citizenship were passes directly to the new successor states. One of the tenets of the mandates system was non annexation of the territories. The Mandates acquired no sovereignty over the territories.

The Mandates were temporarily appointed trustees. They were charged with creating the government institutions needed to establish independence. They were to develop the territories on the behalf of, and in the best interest of the inhabitants. They were to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants until they could stand alone.

After thirty years of failure, Britain threw up its hands and left.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

I would be interested in knowing what "War" P F Tinmore believes Israel started.

Wrong; Israel didn’t initiate War

Wrong; It doesn't matter.
BTW, it did.

(COMMENT)

The various conflicts over in the Middle East, are a dime a dozen. They start and stop almost by magic. So, you have to discuss which particular conflict (War) you are referring.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would be interested in knowing what "War" P F Tinmore believes Israel started.

The war that the Zionists said they were going to have and they did.

 

[Sixties Fan]

And now........Tinmore will get back to the thread's topic by telling us what "From the River to the Sea" means to him.