Who are the Israelis?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have y'all sufficiently deflected from my post about the armistice agreements.

By actually posting portions that prove you lied.

You're welcome.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians, as usual.

 

[Hollie]

Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians, as usual.

Where is this ‘’state of Pally’land”?

What attack took place?

 

[Hollie]

Have y'all sufficiently deflected from my post about the armistice agreements.

Ya’ allah, dude. Has your self esteem been surgically removed to allow you to carry on with your usual spam?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians, as usual.

Tear gas make your terrorist buddies cry?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There was no deflection here at all. The intention of your question is to attempt to present a dilemma for those that understood the existence of "Israel" as a bonafide "State."

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

From past behaviors, your (brusquely) manner and circular question on this single issue → has more to do with the entitlement the Arab Palestinian has when they elude to the holding of a "state."

Have y'all sufficiently deflected from my post about the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what answer we provide, you have already demonstrated, more than enough times, that you will not accept the answer as the "State of Israel" being in existence at the time of the Armistice Agreements were concluded in 1949.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. {LINK}

​

​

State → The criteria of statehood for purposes of international law are commonly held to be in the possession of: ​

​

​

​

(a) a permanent population; ​

(b) a defined territory; ​

(c) government; and​

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States’:​

​

Montevideo Conventions on the Rights and Duties of States of 26 December 1933 ( 165 L.N.T.S. 19 ), ​

Article 1 of the Convention: This provision is generally held to have evolved into a rule of customary international law. The requirements of population and territory are relatively uncontroversial. Essentially, international law imposes no lower limit on the size of a population and recognizes that a population may be nomadic: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12. ​

​

The requirement of territory does not require a State to have undisputed borders, simply that its territory has ‘a sufficient consistency’: Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft v. Polish State ( 1929 ) 5 I.L.R. 11 at 15.​

​

​

Our answer to your question does NOT matter. The existence of a nation "state" or "territory" is only contingent upon the Israeli People believing in themselves and the nation they defend.

In ANY answer provided you will just merely counter by saying it is a "deflection" and or "verbose." The obvious counter-question (but not the only C-Q) is:

Q: Who were the parties to the agreements?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There was no deflection here at all. The intention of your question is to attempt to present a dilemma for those that understood the existence of "Israel" as a bonafide "State."

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

From past behaviors, your (brusquely) manner and circular question on this single issue → has more to do with the entitlement the Arab Palestinian has when they elude to the holding of a "state."

Have y'all sufficiently deflected from my post about the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what answer we provide, you have already demonstrated, more than enough times, that you will not accept the answer as the "State of Israel" being in existence at the time of the Armistice Agreements were concluded in 1949.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. {LINK}

​

​

State → The criteria of statehood for purposes of international law are commonly held to be in the possession of: ​

​

​

​

(a) a permanent population; ​

(b) a defined territory; ​

(c) government; and​

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States’:​

​

Montevideo Conventions on the Rights and Duties of States of 26 December 1933 ( 165 L.N.T.S. 19 ), ​

Article 1 of the Convention: This provision is generally held to have evolved into a rule of customary international law. The requirements of population and territory are relatively uncontroversial. Essentially, international law imposes no lower limit on the size of a population and recognizes that a population may be nomadic: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12. ​

​

The requirement of territory does not require a State to have undisputed borders, simply that its territory has ‘a sufficient consistency’: Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft v. Polish State ( 1929 ) 5 I.L.R. 11 at 15.​

​

​

Our answer to your question does NOT matter. The existence of a nation "state" or "territory" is only contingent upon the Israeli People believing in themselves and the nation they defend.

In ANY answer provided you will just merely counter by saying it is a "deflection" and or "verbose." The obvious counter-question (but not the only C-Q) is:

Q: Who were the parties to the agreements?​

Most Respectfully,
R

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There was no deflection here at all. The intention of your question is to attempt to present a dilemma for those that understood the existence of "Israel" as a bonafide "State."

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

From past behaviors, your (brusquely) manner and circular question on this single issue → has more to do with the entitlement the Arab Palestinian has when they elude to the holding of a "state."

Have y'all sufficiently deflected from my post about the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what answer we provide, you have already demonstrated, more than enough times, that you will not accept the answer as the "State of Israel" being in existence at the time of the Armistice Agreements were concluded in 1949.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. {LINK}

​

​

State → The criteria of statehood for purposes of international law are commonly held to be in the possession of: ​

​

​

​

(a) a permanent population; ​

(b) a defined territory; ​

(c) government; and​

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States’:​

​

Montevideo Conventions on the Rights and Duties of States of 26 December 1933 ( 165 L.N.T.S. 19 ), ​

Article 1 of the Convention: This provision is generally held to have evolved into a rule of customary international law. The requirements of population and territory are relatively uncontroversial. Essentially, international law imposes no lower limit on the size of a population and recognizes that a population may be nomadic: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12. ​

​

The requirement of territory does not require a State to have undisputed borders, simply that its territory has ‘a sufficient consistency’: Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft v. Polish State ( 1929 ) 5 I.L.R. 11 at 15.​

​

​

Our answer to your question does NOT matter. The existence of a nation "state" or "territory" is only contingent upon the Israeli People believing in themselves and the nation they defend.

In ANY answer provided you will just merely counter by saying it is a "deflection" and or "verbose." The obvious counter-question (but not the only C-Q) is:

Q: Who were the parties to the agreements?​

Most Respectfully,
R

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Our answer to your question does NOT matter. The existence of a nation "state" or "territory" is only contingent upon the Israeli People believing in themselves and the nation they defend.

So then, why can't the Palestinians say the same thing?

After all, Palestine declared independence inside Palestine's international borders. Israel declared independence inside Palestine's international borders.

That is problematic for Israel.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There was no deflection here at all. The intention of your question is to attempt to present a dilemma for those that understood the existence of "Israel" as a bonafide "State."

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

From past behaviors, your (brusquely) manner and circular question on this single issue → has more to do with the entitlement the Arab Palestinian has when they elude to the holding of a "state."

Have y'all sufficiently deflected from my post about the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what answer we provide, you have already demonstrated, more than enough times, that you will not accept the answer as the "State of Israel" being in existence at the time of the Armistice Agreements were concluded in 1949.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. {LINK}

​

​

State → The criteria of statehood for purposes of international law are commonly held to be in the possession of: ​

​

​

​

(a) a permanent population; ​

(b) a defined territory; ​

(c) government; and​

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States’:​

​

Montevideo Conventions on the Rights and Duties of States of 26 December 1933 ( 165 L.N.T.S. 19 ), ​

Article 1 of the Convention: This provision is generally held to have evolved into a rule of customary international law. The requirements of population and territory are relatively uncontroversial. Essentially, international law imposes no lower limit on the size of a population and recognizes that a population may be nomadic: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12. ​

​

The requirement of territory does not require a State to have undisputed borders, simply that its territory has ‘a sufficient consistency’: Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft v. Polish State ( 1929 ) 5 I.L.R. 11 at 15.​

​

​

Our answer to your question does NOT matter. The existence of a nation "state" or "territory" is only contingent upon the Israeli People believing in themselves and the nation they defend.

In ANY answer provided you will just merely counter by saying it is a "deflection" and or "verbose." The obvious counter-question (but not the only C-Q) is:

Q: Who were the parties to the agreements?​

Most Respectfully,
R

The direct insistence and peremptory request "about the Armistice Agreement" was:

Quote the part where Israel, as a place, is mentioned.

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Remarkable that you insist on being a buffoon.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: While the Arab Palestinians attempted to gain a solid political posture by a simple Declaration (October 1948), they failed to establish a functional government and a territory under their control.

That is problematic for Israel.

(COMMENT)

Not at all. The Egyptian Puppet Regime just mimicked a state. There was no substance. As far as the Arab League parties to the conflict were concerned, they had their individual zones of control and they were not granting the All Palestine Government (APG) a square inch. And of course, the State of Israel was not abandoning any territory.

So then, why can't the Palestinians say the same thing?
After all, Palestine declared independence inside Palestine's international borders. Israel declared independence inside Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is simply inaccurate. To say the Arab Palestinians "declared independence inside Palestine's international borders" is NOT TRUE. Palestine was a territory administered under Mandate by the United Kingdom, who was entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

The mistake here is that when you say "Palestine" you say it as if "Palestine" had international borders. It did not. The Mandate had a territory over which the Mandate applied. The various Allied Powers came to an agreement in various ways to facilitate the control. "Palestine" was a legal entity → but NOT → a sovereign state.

◈ The Government of Palestine was the face of the legal entity; necessary for the Mandatory to conduct trade, commerce, and foreign affairs.​

◈ Whereas Israel was a sovereign nation with no other power higher within its boundaries.​

◈ There was no single place in the entire territory under which the Mandate applied, in which the APG was the highest authority.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The mistake here is that when you say "Palestine" you say it as if "Palestine" had international borders. It did not.

And here we go back to Israeli bullshit. Looking back at those pesky armistice agreements, Palestine was still there and their international borders remained unchanged. And I need not remind you that the armistice agreements were after the Mandate left and after Israel's declaration of Independence.

Palestine still had pre war status. My question has always been when and how did that change?

 

[Hollie]

The mistake here is that when you say "Palestine" you say it as if "Palestine" had international borders. It did not.

And here we go back to Israeli bullshit. Looking back at those pesky armistice agreements, Palestine was still there and their international borders remained unchanged. And I need not remind you that the armistice agreements were after the Mandate left and after Israel's declaration of Independence.

Palestine still had pre war status. My question has always been when and how did that change?

Where, exactly, was this "Palestine'' you write about? Agreements, treaties were documents signed by Israel and Arab neighbors. You deny the existence of those nations ("Israeli and Egyptian are not places"), so you remain married to conspiracy theories.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You make these claims and then hold them up as if they made a difference.

The mistake here is that when you say "Palestine" you say it as if "Palestine" had international borders. It did not.

And here we go back to Israeli bullshit. Looking back at those pesky armistice agreements, Palestine was still there and their international borders remained unchanged. And I need not remind you that the armistice agreements were after the Mandate left and after Israel's declaration of Independence.

Palestine still had pre war status. My question has always been when and how did that change?

(COMMENT)

"Palestine," for about eight centuries, immediately prior to the Great War, was an undefined (lacking definite physiographical or topographical boundaries). It did not meet the Article 1 Criteria (Montevideo Convention) for a territory.

"Palestine" was an unmarked regional expanse that extended through several Ottoman Administrative and Political Subdivisions.

Demarcations agreed upon in an Armistice make no impact once the Armistice is superseded. The Armistice Agreements only remained in force until such a time when a peace agreement was established.

◈ The Armistice Agreement that covered the Gaza Strip was superseded on 26 March 1979.​

◈ The Armistice Agreement that covered the West Bank and Jerusalem was superseded on 26 October 1994.​

◈ The Armistice Agreement covering the Northern Border Region with Lebanon was superseded in the 12 June 2000 letter.​

◈ The Syrian Border Armistice was superseded by the Basic Law of December 1981.​

You are trying to assign authority to the Armistice Agreements that have long since past relevance.

You are trying to assign some relevance to the 19th Century status to Palestine as if it were sovereign at some point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Dancing which showed the agreements included many mentions of Israel as well
as Israelis. Not to mention they were signed on behalf of the goverment of Israel
by Israeli citizens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You make these claims and then hold them up as if they made a difference.

The mistake here is that when you say "Palestine" you say it as if "Palestine" had international borders. It did not.

And here we go back to Israeli bullshit. Looking back at those pesky armistice agreements, Palestine was still there and their international borders remained unchanged. And I need not remind you that the armistice agreements were after the Mandate left and after Israel's declaration of Independence.

Palestine still had pre war status. My question has always been when and how did that change?

(COMMENT)

"Palestine," for about eight centuries, immediately prior to the Great War, was an undefined (lacking definite physiographical or topographical boundaries). It did not meet the Article 1 Criteria (Montevideo Convention) for a territory.

"Palestine" was an unmarked regional expanse that extended through several Ottoman Administrative and Political Subdivisions.

Demarcations agreed upon in an Armistice make no impact once the Armistice is superseded. The Armistice Agreements only remained in force until such a time when a peace agreement was established.

◈ The Armistice Agreement that covered the Gaza Strip was superseded on 26 March 1979.​

◈ The Armistice Agreement that covered the West Bank and Jerusalem was superseded on 26 October 1994.​

◈ The Armistice Agreement covering the Northern Border Region with Lebanon was superseded in the 12 June 2000 letter.​

◈ The Syrian Border Armistice was superseded by the Basic Law of December 1981.​

You are trying to assign authority to the Armistice Agreements that have long since past relevance.

You are trying to assign some relevance to the 19th Century status to Palestine as if it were sovereign at some point.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

You are ducking my question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Dancing which showed the agreements included many mentions of Israel as well
as Israelis. Not to mention they were signed on behalf of the goverment of Israel
by Israeli citizens.

OK, but the 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine. Palestine was not a party to that war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Dancing which showed the agreements included many mentions of Israel as well
as Israelis. Not to mention they were signed on behalf of the goverment of Israel
by Israeli citizens.

OK, but the 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine. Palestine was not a party to that war.

Because Palestine wasn't a nation in 1948. Still isn't.
Israel was a nation in 1948. Still is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Dancing which showed the agreements included many mentions of Israel as well
as Israelis. Not to mention they were signed on behalf of the goverment of Israel
by Israeli citizens.

OK, but the 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine. Palestine was not a party to that war.

Because Palestine wasn't a nation in 1948. Still isn't.
Israel was a nation in 1948. Still is.

Unsubstantiated Israeli BS talking points.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A simple request and all I got was a couple pages of dancing.

Dancing which showed the agreements included many mentions of Israel as well
as Israelis. Not to mention they were signed on behalf of the goverment of Israel
by Israeli citizens.

OK, but the 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine. Palestine was not a party to that war.

Because Palestine wasn't a nation in 1948. Still isn't.
Israel was a nation in 1948. Still is.

Unsubstantiated Israeli BS talking points.

Refuting your baloney causes you pain.

It might be angina.