Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

Here you are again with the unknown "talking points" comment.

You know as well as I do, that the status on the Question of Palestinian Statehood is still not confirmed by the courts. I cannot count the number of times I have mentioned this in commentary on the Situation in the State of Palestine. Did YOU READ Hollie's commentary on the subject (Posting #15841)?

It has been a month (or so) that the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber invites Palestine, Israel, interested States and others to submit observations and an amicus curiae.

See: No.: ICC-01/18 Date:13 February 2020.

Stupid post.

How many Israelis are old enough to "return" to someplace in Palestine where they have once lived?

A double standard of epic proportions.

(COMMENT)

I would ask you to open your eyes. It appears that at least six countries have filed an amicus brief that argues the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to the Palestinian territories.

What you consider to be "facts" about the Status of Palestine, may not be fact at all. But what I find interesting is that The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is trying to rally for the Arab Palestinians is not having much luck. Although they condemn Germany's amicus brief, it is unclear if the Grand Duchy has submitted a brief of its own position.

(ON THE MATTER OF THE RIGHT OF RETURN)

The Customary Law on the concept of the "Right of Return" (RoR) is based on the Customary Law on the definition of the refugee, the displaced person, or the application of Civil and Political Rights. None of which are the same as what you give in context. The simplest of these is the Covenant:

Article 12
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights •

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

⁜→ You would be hard pressed to find anyone in that picture that is 70 years old or older. That is how old you have to be in order to be even remotely considered under the Cuswtomary RoR. This is not a double standard because, since 1948, it was sovereign Israeli Territory with its own domestic laws. Something that the Arab Palestinians have not yet established.
​

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

⁜→ Everyone is free to leave Israel. And just as similar, everyone is free to leave the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. BUT, non-Israeli citizens need Israeli permission to transit Israeli Territory. This is the exact same principle that is used in almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa; the US, the UK, the Russian Federation, etc, etc, etc....
​

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

⁜→ The travel, entry and exit of Israel is covered by domestic law --- the same as nearly every country in the Northern Hemisphere. ​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

⁜→ Israeli domestic law on these matter are very specific and NOT arbitrary.​

There is no law, domestic or international that singles-out that Arab Palestinians for special restrictions. If they meet the criteria, they can get permission to enter. BUT keep in mind that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says:

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 21

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
​

That means that most Arab Palestinians are going to have trouble with the national security or public safety, public order issues. And Any Arab Palestinian who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is going to have trouble meeting the entry criteria under international law; before they are even considered under Israeli domestic Law. In fact, most of the Arab Palestinians that have been pictured in these photos will never be able to transit Israeli Sovereign Territory without a very close scrutiny. The same can be said for those that have been arrested for any of the 19 International Counter-Terrorism Covenants.

(DOUBLE STANDARD)

None!


Most Respectfully,
R

There is no law, domestic or international that singles-out that Arab Palestinians for special restrictions. If they meet the criteria, they can get permission to enter.

The Right of Return has nothing to do with tourism or immigration. It is about where people belong under international law.

Nice try, but there's no such right.
Legally a nation cannot be forced to accept a hostile population.

You missed the point.

No surprise.

But nothing to refute,
how surprising.

Got more of that wisdom?

Don't blame me for you missing the point.

 

[rylah]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

Here you are again with the unknown "talking points" comment.

You know as well as I do, that the status on the Question of Palestinian Statehood is still not confirmed by the courts. I cannot count the number of times I have mentioned this in commentary on the Situation in the State of Palestine. Did YOU READ Hollie's commentary on the subject (Posting #15841)?

It has been a month (or so) that the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber invites Palestine, Israel, interested States and others to submit observations and an amicus curiae.

See: No.: ICC-01/18 Date:13 February 2020.
(COMMENT)

I would ask you to open your eyes. It appears that at least six countries have filed an amicus brief that argues the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to the Palestinian territories.

What you consider to be "facts" about the Status of Palestine, may not be fact at all. But what I find interesting is that The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is trying to rally for the Arab Palestinians is not having much luck. Although they condemn Germany's amicus brief, it is unclear if the Grand Duchy has submitted a brief of its own position.

(ON THE MATTER OF THE RIGHT OF RETURN)

The Customary Law on the concept of the "Right of Return" (RoR) is based on the Customary Law on the definition of the refugee, the displaced person, or the application of Civil and Political Rights. None of which are the same as what you give in context. The simplest of these is the Covenant:

Article 12
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights •

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

⁜→ You would be hard pressed to find anyone in that picture that is 70 years old or older. That is how old you have to be in order to be even remotely considered under the Cuswtomary RoR. This is not a double standard because, since 1948, it was sovereign Israeli Territory with its own domestic laws. Something that the Arab Palestinians have not yet established.
​

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

⁜→ Everyone is free to leave Israel. And just as similar, everyone is free to leave the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. BUT, non-Israeli citizens need Israeli permission to transit Israeli Territory. This is the exact same principle that is used in almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa; the US, the UK, the Russian Federation, etc, etc, etc....
​

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

⁜→ The travel, entry and exit of Israel is covered by domestic law --- the same as nearly every country in the Northern Hemisphere. ​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

⁜→ Israeli domestic law on these matter are very specific and NOT arbitrary.​

There is no law, domestic or international that singles-out that Arab Palestinians for special restrictions. If they meet the criteria, they can get permission to enter. BUT keep in mind that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says:

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 21

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
​

That means that most Arab Palestinians are going to have trouble with the national security or public safety, public order issues. And Any Arab Palestinian who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is going to have trouble meeting the entry criteria under international law; before they are even considered under Israeli domestic Law. In fact, most of the Arab Palestinians that have been pictured in these photos will never be able to transit Israeli Sovereign Territory without a very close scrutiny. The same can be said for those that have been arrested for any of the 19 International Counter-Terrorism Covenants.

(DOUBLE STANDARD)

None!


Most Respectfully,
R

There is no law, domestic or international that singles-out that Arab Palestinians for special restrictions. If they meet the criteria, they can get permission to enter.

The Right of Return has nothing to do with tourism or immigration. It is about where people belong under international law.

Nice try, but there's no such right.
Legally a nation cannot be forced to accept a hostile population.

You missed the point.

No surprise.

But nothing to refute,
how surprising.

Got more of that wisdom?

Don't blame me for you missing the point.

Cut the bs.
What's your point,
to make stuff up and act as if anything you utter is divine revelation?

By now everyone knows you lie knowingly,
get real, with all the mindless parroting of ridiculous blood libels,
and intellectual dishonesty, the question rather is how are you relevant to the conversation at all.

 

[Mindful]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

Here you are again with the unknown "talking points" comment.

You know as well as I do, that the status on the Question of Palestinian Statehood is still not confirmed by the courts. I cannot count the number of times I have mentioned this in commentary on the Situation in the State of Palestine. Did YOU READ Hollie's commentary on the subject (Posting #15841)?

It has been a month (or so) that the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber invites Palestine, Israel, interested States and others to submit observations and an amicus curiae.

See: No.: ICC-01/18 Date:13 February 2020.
(COMMENT)

I would ask you to open your eyes. It appears that at least six countries have filed an amicus brief that argues the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to the Palestinian territories.

What you consider to be "facts" about the Status of Palestine, may not be fact at all. But what I find interesting is that The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is trying to rally for the Arab Palestinians is not having much luck. Although they condemn Germany's amicus brief, it is unclear if the Grand Duchy has submitted a brief of its own position.

(ON THE MATTER OF THE RIGHT OF RETURN)

The Customary Law on the concept of the "Right of Return" (RoR) is based on the Customary Law on the definition of the refugee, the displaced person, or the application of Civil and Political Rights. None of which are the same as what you give in context. The simplest of these is the Covenant:

Article 12
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights •

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

⁜→ You would be hard pressed to find anyone in that picture that is 70 years old or older. That is how old you have to be in order to be even remotely considered under the Cuswtomary RoR. This is not a double standard because, since 1948, it was sovereign Israeli Territory with its own domestic laws. Something that the Arab Palestinians have not yet established.
​

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

⁜→ Everyone is free to leave Israel. And just as similar, everyone is free to leave the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. BUT, non-Israeli citizens need Israeli permission to transit Israeli Territory. This is the exact same principle that is used in almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa; the US, the UK, the Russian Federation, etc, etc, etc....
​

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

⁜→ The travel, entry and exit of Israel is covered by domestic law --- the same as nearly every country in the Northern Hemisphere. ​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

⁜→ Israeli domestic law on these matter are very specific and NOT arbitrary.​

There is no law, domestic or international that singles-out that Arab Palestinians for special restrictions. If they meet the criteria, they can get permission to enter. BUT keep in mind that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says:

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 21

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
​

That means that most Arab Palestinians are going to have trouble with the national security or public safety, public order issues. And Any Arab Palestinian who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is going to have trouble meeting the entry criteria under international law; before they are even considered under Israeli domestic Law. In fact, most of the Arab Palestinians that have been pictured in these photos will never be able to transit Israeli Sovereign Territory without a very close scrutiny. The same can be said for those that have been arrested for any of the 19 International Counter-Terrorism Covenants.

(DOUBLE STANDARD)

None!


Most Respectfully,
R

There is no law, domestic or international that singles-out that Arab Palestinians for special restrictions. If they meet the criteria, they can get permission to enter.

The Right of Return has nothing to do with tourism or immigration. It is about where people belong under international law.

Nice try, but there's no such right.
Legally a nation cannot be forced to accept a hostile population.

You missed the point.

No surprise.

But nothing to refute,
how surprising.

Got more of that wisdom?

Don't blame me for you missing the point.

What point?

 

[Mindful]

• Meanwhile, there are other Arabs in the region who are more fortunate than the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip: the Arab citizens of Israel. These citizens are lucky that they do not live under the rule of the corrupt and incompetent leaders of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. These Arab citizens are fortunate because they live in Israel.
  
  
• Here is more unwelcome good news regarding the Arab citizens of Israel: The Israeli government announced in 2018 that in the last two years, it has invested 4.5 billion shekels ($1.3 billion) in the Arab regions. The government also announced that it would invest 20 million shekels ($5.6 million) in the Arab high-tech market. Overall, the government has decided to invest 15 billion shekels ($4.3 billion) in the Arab-Israeli sector by the end of 2020....
  
  
• The $50 billion dollars the Trump plan offered the Palestinians will end up being withheld because Palestinian leaders have something else on their minds: to continue enriching their own bank accounts at the expense of their people. No wonder, then, that when Arabs -- including Palestinians -- dream of a better life, they often dream of moving to Israel. No wonder, as well, that most Arab Israelis do not want to become part of a Palestinian state, and have been demanding to stay in Israel.
  
  The Fortunate Arabs in the Middle East
  

 

[Hollie]

Just another day in yet another place on the globe where Islamic terrorists cause death and destruction.


Palestinian Islamic Jihad bombards South after clash near Gaza border

The IDF began attacking terror targets in the Gaza Strip in response to over 21 rockets were fired towards southern Israel communities on Sunday in several rocket barrages after Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) threatened to avenge the death of a terrorist by the IDF after he tried to plant explosives along the Gaza border fence.

The IDF said as of 11 p.m. that of 21 rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, 13 were successfully intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You know I'm not the one with the problem.

If you are looking for some right that just allows someone to walk across the frontier without a challenge

You have a lot of problems with the meaning of this so called frontier. The Green Line was drawn through Palestine. The line was to keep Israeli and Jordanian troops from attacking each other. Since the line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary, it did not say that it was one country on one side and another country on the other. And, since it was not a border, it was still Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved. This is the expression that was agreed upon and recorded in Article XII of each Armistice arrangement. The peaceful settlement was achieved between the parties (relative to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) on:

◈ Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
​

◈ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)

Article 3
The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
​

In the legal meaning of the “Termination of the Mandate” the Question of Palestine and its status was given as:

After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

What authority can keep the Palestinians from traveling freely within their own country?

(COMMENT)

The misunderstanding here is, as explained supra, your meaning of "within their own country" and the application of boundaries established by sovereign power "after 15 May 1948." After 15 May 1948, the Jewish State of Israel, a truly sovereign power, was created and under the "right of self-determination," established sovereign boundaries within the "Legal Entity" known as "Palestine." The remainder of that "Legal Entity" then fell under the authority of the UN international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision; as agreed upon in Chapter XII of the UN Charter.

If the Ramallah Government becomes a member of the UN and a signatory to the Charter, it agrees that:

Article 77

1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed there under by means of trusteeship agreements:
a. territories now held under mandate;​

And, as you know, in 1945, when the Charter was written, the "Legal Entity" known as "Palestine" was held under the "Mandate for Palestine."

You may not agree with the decisions described here, but your agreement - and the agreement of the Arab Palestinian People - was NOT required at the time these decisions were made. And once the Arab Palestinian Leadership (whoever that might be at the time) actually achieves UN Membership, they accept this as well.

I have seen your argument, wherein, you claim that the boundary for the country of Palestine was established in 1924. Well, the Allied Powers established the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them (ie the Allied Powers themselves). These boundaries, as were fixed in 1922 by the Allied Powers, established the Government of Palestine. From 1922 until 15 May 1948, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. This was NOT a country governed by the Arab Palestinians. In fact, the Arab Palestinian declined numerous times to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine.

SO, not only was the Arab Palestinians NOT formed into a self-governing institution forming an Arab State, they expressly refused to do this.

I have acknowledged your argument about the "All Palestine Government" (APG) and the claim that the Arab Palestinian communique of 28 September 1948, A/C.1/330 14 October 1948, from the Premier of the APG, represents the establishment of a government. This was totally ignored, as a non-functioning government without self-governing institutions, origination from the foreign Military Governorship in the Gaza Strip.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

• Palestinians, in short, are saying that they refuse to accept funding by any party that does not accept their conditions and demands.
  
  
• It is as if someone applies for a loan from a bank but demands that the bank accept his or her demands, and not the other way around. Usually, those who offer the money have the right to set the conditions.
  
  
• For the Palestinians, it seems, the opposite is true. They seem to believe that they are the ones entitled to set conditions to those who are offering to improve their living needs and help them march towards prosperity and a better future for their children.
  
  
• Palestinian leaders know that their society is floundering in every possible way. Yet, rather than welcoming the proposed US programs, they are condemning the Americans and inciting their people against the US administration for even making such a generous offer. This is precisely the disastrous dynamic that decades ago landed the Palestinian people in their quagmire, and it is precisely the same dynamic that keeps them trapped in that morass.
  

(full article online)

Palestinians Condemn US for Offering to Help

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You know I'm not the one with the problem.

If you are looking for some right that just allows someone to walk across the frontier without a challenge

You have a lot of problems with the meaning of this so called frontier. The Green Line was drawn through Palestine. The line was to keep Israeli and Jordanian troops from attacking each other. Since the line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary, it did not say that it was one country on one side and another country on the other. And, since it was not a border, it was still Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved. This is the expression that was agreed upon and recorded in Article XII of each Armistice arrangement. The peaceful settlement was achieved between the parties (relative to the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) on:

◈ Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
​

◈ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)

Article 3
The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
​

In the legal meaning of the “Termination of the Mandate” the Question of Palestine and its status was given as:

After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.​

What authority can keep the Palestinians from traveling freely within their own country?

(COMMENT)

The misunderstanding here is, as explained supra, your meaning of "within their own country" and the application of boundaries established by sovereign power "after 15 May 1948." After 15 May 1948, the Jewish State of Israel, a truly sovereign power, was created and under the "right of self-determination," established sovereign boundaries within the "Legal Entity" known as "Palestine." The remainder of that "Legal Entity" then fell under the authority of the UN international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision; as agreed upon in Chapter XII of the UN Charter.

If the Ramallah Government becomes a member of the UN and a signatory to the Charter, it agrees that:

Article 77

1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed there under by means of trusteeship agreements:
a. territories now held under mandate;​

And, as you know, in 1945, when the Charter was written, the "Legal Entity" known as "Palestine" was held under the "Mandate for Palestine."

You may not agree with the decisions described here, but your agreement - and the agreement of the Arab Palestinian People - was NOT required at the time these decisions were made. And once the Arab Palestinian Leadership (whoever that might be at the time) actually achieves UN Membership, they accept this as well.

I have seen your argument, wherein, you claim that the boundary for the country of Palestine was established in 1924. Well, the Allied Powers established the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them (ie the Allied Powers themselves). These boundaries, as were fixed in 1922 by the Allied Powers, established the Government of Palestine. From 1922 until 15 May 1948, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. This was NOT a country governed by the Arab Palestinians. In fact, the Arab Palestinian declined numerous times to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine.

SO, not only was the Arab Palestinians NOT formed into a self-governing institution forming an Arab State, they expressly refused to do this.

I have acknowledged your argument about the "All Palestine Government" (APG) and the claim that the Arab Palestinian communique of 28 September 1948, A/C.1/330 14 October 1948, from the Premier of the APG, represents the establishment of a government. This was totally ignored, as a non-functioning government without self-governing institutions, origination from the foreign Military Governorship in the Gaza Strip.


Most Respectfully,
R

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

 

[Hollie]

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

The lines no longer ran through the loosely defined geographic area called Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

In case you missed it, Fatah has declared war on the Great Satan.

Not surprisingly, the gee-had screeching heroes representing Fatah pushed a 10 year old child to the gee-had microphone to make their announcement along with an assortment of child soldiers.

There's this "thing" with Arab-Moslem men and female children.

Clip #7832 | February 24, 2020
10-Year-Old Palestinian Girl at Pro-Abbas Demonstration Curses Trump, Says: If You Want War, We Declare War

 

[Hollie]

The thrill is gone...

Somebody cue up B. B. King


Hamas failing to rally West Bank against US peace plan

Hamas and other Palestinian factions have been trying to spark armed resistance in the West Bank to the recently revealed US Mideast peace plan, but they face several challenges. Recent incidents there have been limited to sporadic individual attacks against Israeli targets.



Hamas may need to expand their supply of 10 year old girls.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Another mistake you keep making. The lines (all the demarcations) ran through the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, but in 1949 it was the territory under Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System of the UN.

The territorial name of "Palestine" was adopted for use by the Allied Powers as noted in the "Palestine Order in Council" of 1922:

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.​

Prior to the establishment of the Mandate Authority, the territory was some set of Political Administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire.
[cwenter]

[/center]

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

(COMMENT)

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

The Oslo II Agreement contains a clause [Article 31(7) • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] in which both sides agree:

"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
​

Theoretically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are UN Trustee Territories that are "unallocated."

It is my opinion that you do not have any solid argument in the Arab Palestinian favor until such time as the Court makes some decision. But until then, you cannot show that Israel has taken anything away from the "Country of Palestine" because it cannot even show where the Arab Palestinians have established sovereignty.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Another mistake you keep making. The lines (all the demarcations) ran through the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, but in 1949 it was the territory under Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System of the UN.

The territorial name of "Palestine" was adopted for use by the Allied Powers as noted in the "Palestine Order in Council" of 1922:

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.​

Prior to the establishment of the Mandate Authority, the territory was some set of Political Administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire.
[cwenter]
View attachment 308586
[/center]

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

(COMMENT)

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

The Oslo II Agreement contains a clause [Article 31(7) • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] in which both sides agree:

"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
​

Theoretically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are UN Trustee Territories that are "unallocated."

It is my opinion that you do not have any solid argument in the Arab Palestinian favor until such time as the Court makes some decision. But until then, you cannot show that Israel has taken anything away from the "Country of Palestine" because it cannot even show where the Arab Palestinians have established sovereignty.



Most Respectfully,
R

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

Do foreigners have the authority to change international borders?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Another mistake you keep making. The lines (all the demarcations) ran through the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, but in 1949 it was the territory under Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System of the UN.

The territorial name of "Palestine" was adopted for use by the Allied Powers as noted in the "Palestine Order in Council" of 1922:

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.​

Prior to the establishment of the Mandate Authority, the territory was some set of Political Administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire.
[cwenter]
View attachment 308586
[/center]

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

(COMMENT)

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

The Oslo II Agreement contains a clause [Article 31(7) • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] in which both sides agree:

"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
​

Theoretically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are UN Trustee Territories that are "unallocated."

It is my opinion that you do not have any solid argument in the Arab Palestinian favor until such time as the Court makes some decision. But until then, you cannot show that Israel has taken anything away from the "Country of Palestine" because it cannot even show where the Arab Palestinians have established sovereignty.



Most Respectfully,
R

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

Do foreigners have the authority to change international borders?

Link?

Foreigners changed international borders?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Another mistake you keep making. The lines (all the demarcations) ran through the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, but in 1949 it was the territory under Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System of the UN.

The territorial name of "Palestine" was adopted for use by the Allied Powers as noted in the "Palestine Order in Council" of 1922:

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.​

Prior to the establishment of the Mandate Authority, the territory was some set of Political Administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire.
[cwenter]
View attachment 308586
[/center]

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

(COMMENT)

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

The Oslo II Agreement contains a clause [Article 31(7) • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] in which both sides agree:

"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
​

Theoretically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are UN Trustee Territories that are "unallocated."

It is my opinion that you do not have any solid argument in the Arab Palestinian favor until such time as the Court makes some decision. But until then, you cannot show that Israel has taken anything away from the "Country of Palestine" because it cannot even show where the Arab Palestinians have established sovereignty.



Most Respectfully,
R

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

Do foreigners have the authority to change international borders?

Link?

Foreigners changed international borders?

Link?

RoccoR has posted those links many times.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep asking this question.

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

Do foreigners have the authority to change international borders?

Link?

(REFERENCE)

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic the authority for the certain powers were based on the Treaty:

A better question to ask is: Who did not have the authority to change international borders? (Answer: The Arab Palestinians did NOT have the authority to change international borders. They declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.)

ARTICLE 16.

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

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

[LINK]

The key here is who gets to decide the future of the territory. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the treaty.

(COMMENT)

You don't identify, in your question, who are the "foreigners." But it is a poor choice of words. I assume you are talking about all people other than the Arab Palestinian. And in 1923, the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty over any portion of the territory. Whereas the Allied Powers had all rights and title and were able to determine the future of the territory.

By 1974, when the Treaty between Israel and Egypt were concluded, the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the conflict, and thus not a party to the treaty.

Similarly, in 1994, when the Treaty between Israel and Jordan was concluded, the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the conflict, and thus not a party to the treaty.​

These two treaties represented an end to the conflict, involving these sovereign powers, that began in 1948.

Foreigners did not make any changes to international boundaries. Rather, the parties concluding the treaties which established the new international boundaries → did so → to settle disputes of territorial integrity and boundaries of political independence between the sovereign powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Another mistake you keep making. The lines (all the demarcations) ran through the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, but in 1949 it was the territory under Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System of the UN.

The territorial name of "Palestine" was adopted for use by the Allied Powers as noted in the "Palestine Order in Council" of 1922:

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.​

Prior to the establishment of the Mandate Authority, the territory was some set of Political Administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire.
[cwenter]
View attachment 308586
[/center]

The Armistice Lines of 1949 are historical only. These lines went into force immediately upon being signed; remaining in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties was achieved.

The armistice lines around the West Bank and Gaza were erased by the peace agreements. Since these lines ran through Palestine, what changed when they were erased?

(COMMENT)

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

The Oslo II Agreement contains a clause [Article 31(7) • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] in which both sides agree:

"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
​

Theoretically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are UN Trustee Territories that are "unallocated."

It is my opinion that you do not have any solid argument in the Arab Palestinian favor until such time as the Court makes some decision. But until then, you cannot show that Israel has taken anything away from the "Country of Palestine" because it cannot even show where the Arab Palestinians have established sovereignty.



Most Respectfully,
R

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

Do foreigners have the authority to change international borders?

Link?

Foreigners changed international borders?

Link?

RoccoR has posted those links many times.

Why was I certain you couldn't support your claim?

 

[Hollie]

The islamic terrorist franchise operated by Hamas is a bottomless pit of greed and corruption.



How Hamas Spends Qatari Money

According to Hamada, the money was distributed to 70,000 families. He then went on to itemize, in considerable detail, how the money was spent. The problem is that when one adds up all the funds supposedly allotted to all the identified populations, they add up to only NIS 59,709,154. If Hamada’s claims about the size of the distributions to Gaza’s poor are accurate, it means NIS 208 million, or nearly 80%, is unaccounted for.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep asking this question.

The establishment of the treaties and the new international boundaries change the authority responsible for its administration as accepted by the treaty signatories.

Do foreigners have the authority to change international borders?

Link?

(REFERENCE)

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic the authority for the certain powers were based on the Treaty:

A better question to ask is: Who did not have the authority to change international borders? (Answer: The Arab Palestinians did NOT have the authority to change international borders. They declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.)

ARTICLE 16.

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

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

[LINK]

The key here is who gets to decide the future of the territory. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the treaty.

(COMMENT)

You don't identify, in your question, who are the "foreigners." But it is a poor choice of words. I assume you are talking about all people other than the Arab Palestinian. And in 1923, the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty over any portion of the territory. Whereas the Allied Powers had all rights and title and were able to determine the future of the territory.

By 1974, when the Treaty between Israel and Egypt were concluded, the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the conflict, and thus not a party to the treaty.

Similarly, in 1994, when the Treaty between Israel and Jordan was concluded, the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the conflict, and thus not a party to the treaty.​

These two treaties represented an end to the conflict, involving these sovereign powers, that began in 1948.

Foreigners did not make any changes to international boundaries. Rather, the parties concluding the treaties which established the new international boundaries → did so → to settle disputes of territorial integrity and boundaries of political independence between the sovereign powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

ARTICLE 16.

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

You post this a lot and you always assume that the parties concerned are the allied powers. That is not true.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

The allied powers, in this case Britain, did not acquire territory or sovereignty.

The territory, however, was transferred to Palestine. The Palestinians (the people who lived there) became citizens of Palestine. They are the people who have the right to self determination and sovereignty as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are taking the "ridiculousness" to new heights. This is a question in which the first-order rule of interpretation tells appliers how an interpreted treaty provision shall be understood.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

(COMMENT)

Now you can use the → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969):

Article 2(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;​

OR​

​

You can use the → On The Interpretation of Treaties • Law and Philosophy Library • Volume 83 [ISBN 978-1-4020-6362-6 (e-book)]

Rule #1§4 For the purpose of this rule, parties means any and all states for which the treaty is in force at
the time of interpretation.​

OR​

Generally Held: → Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 455

party (to a treaty) In terms of art. 2(1)(g) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
of 23 May 1969 ( 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 ), a party is ‘a State which has consented to be bound by
the treaty and for which the treaty is in force’. Cf . contracting State ; signatory State .

A party to a contract is one who holds the obligations and receives the benefits of a legally binding agreement. When two parties enter into an agreement, there are two distinct roles each play: the promisor and the promisee. The promisor is the party that makes the promise, while the promisee is on the receiving end of the promise.​

Don't for a moment think that Section II (Nationality) • Article 30 has anything to do with who is a party to the Treaty or on the decisions as to transfer of territory. While it is TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the Government of Palestine (a legal entity), it is NOT TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became nationals of the Government of Palestine. States within the territory west of the Jordan River had been undecided. And the territory east of the Jordan River was only granted its sovereignty by the treaty with the Mandatory Power (Great Britain) in 1946. (See Treaty Series page 145)

The territory, however, was transferred to Palestine. The Palestinians (the people who lived there) became citizens of Palestine. They are the people who have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

(COMMENT)

The territory was NOT transferred anywhere. And Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. It cannot be made any clearer. There was no country created in the territory west of the Jordan River until 15 May 1948 by the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government; that being the Jewish State of Israel. At that time, the people of all persuasions, inside the limits of the sovereign territory over which the Jewish.

Just as a matter of clarity, the Arab Palestinian people did not declare independence. It was the Palestine Liberation Organization that declared independence.


Most Respectfully,
R