Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

He is just avoiding the answer, as if hiding his head will make it less applicable.

Link (Not just a RoccoR data dump hoping that there is something relevant in there.)

(COMMENT)

He calls it a "data dump" because it answers the question.


Most Respectfully,
R

For example:

You constantly post about the violation of international borders.

You never mention that Israel has no borders to violate and that it is Israel that has violated Palestine's international borders.

The nation of Israel has more borders than the imaginary nation of Palestine.

 

[rylah]

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

He is just avoiding the answer, as if hiding his head will make it less applicable.

Link (Not just a RoccoR data dump hoping that there is something relevant in there.)

(COMMENT)

He calls it a "data dump" because it answers the question.


Most Respectfully,
R

For example:

You constantly post about the violation of international borders.

You never mention that Israel has no borders to violate and that it is Israel that has violated Palestine's international borders.

The borders allotted for Palestine were vested with Jewish sovereignty under international law.
Administrative documents had 'Palestine/Eretz Israel' written in the title.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

He is just avoiding the answer, as if hiding his head will make it less applicable.

Link (Not just a RoccoR data dump hoping that there is something relevant in there.)

(COMMENT)

He calls it a "data dump" because it answers the question.


Most Respectfully,
R

For example:

You constantly post about the violation of international borders.

You never mention that Israel has no borders to violate and that it is Israel that has violated Palestine's international borders.

The borders allotted for Palestine were vested with Jewish sovereignty under international law.
Administrative documents had 'Palestine/Eretz Israel' written in the title.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[Hollie]

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

He is just avoiding the answer, as if hiding his head will make it less applicable.

Link (Not just a RoccoR data dump hoping that there is something relevant in there.)

(COMMENT)

He calls it a "data dump" because it answers the question.


Most Respectfully,
R

For example:

You constantly post about the violation of international borders.

You never mention that Israel has no borders to violate and that it is Israel that has violated Palestine's international borders.

The borders allotted for Palestine were vested with Jewish sovereignty under international law.
Administrative documents had 'Palestine/Eretz Israel' written in the title.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Raise your hand and asks questions when you don't understand what has been presented.

Your cut and paste slogans won't help you learn.

 

[toastman]

OK, but what part of all that addresses my post? Most, if not all of that, is irrelevant.

The question implied was how did Israel declare independence inside Palestine?

Link saying that is legal?

That is like asking if it was legal for the United States to declare independence inside North America?

There was no international law back then. Conquest was not illegal.

It is now.

With all due respect, ForeverYoung436 comparison does not fit the case of Israel.
Because it the opposite from illegal conquest, bot by standards back then and now.

International law vested all sovereignty in Palestine/Eretz Israel with the Jewish nation,
for the RE-CONSTITUTION of their homeland as "the trust of civilizations",
land returned to its nation.

Link (Not just a RoccoR data dump hoping that there is something relevant in there.)

OK, but what part of all that addresses my post? Most, if not all of that, is irrelevant.

The question implied was how did Israel declare independence inside Palestine?

Link saying that is legal?

That is like asking if it was legal for the United States to declare independence inside North America?

There was no international law back then. Conquest was not illegal.

It is now.

With all due respect, ForeverYoung436 comparison does not fit the case of Israel.
Because it the opposite from illegal conquest, bot by standards back then and now.

International law vested all sovereignty in Palestine/Eretz Israel with the Jewish nation,
for the RE-CONSTITUTION of their homeland as "the trust of civilizations",
land returned to its nation.

Link (Not just a RoccoR data dump hoping that there is something relevant in there.)

You call it a data dump because you can’t handle the simple truth that he demolished your so called argument

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Over the last year, I have given you every key piece of information you need to debunk every single claim for territory. They have consistently said that "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." and that "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." Out of their own mouth, the way for peace is not the direction they are headed.

I am convinced that you don't know what an international boundary is. I further suspect that you have not read either of the Articles within the Peace Treaties covering the two principle land areas which cover the establishment of the international boundaries between Israel and the two Arab League members that once had control over the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

I am also convinced that you don't know the difference between the nationality of people being assigned to new states - and that of - territorial Rights and Title being relinquished form in favor of another party to the treaty Again, it sounds like to me that you are suggesting that the Arab Palestinians are somehow the beneficiaries of the Treaty of Laussane; which brought finalization and conclusion marking an ended to the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of World War I.

Let me make this abundantly clear. In no way are former officers of the Ottoman Army like Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and Ahmed Hilmi Pasha suppose to benefit from the settlement between the warring parties. This is just as true at the end of WWI and it was after WWII.

The Subject of INTERNATIONAL LAW • Fifth Edition • Cambridge Press Page 191
This duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state was included in the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States adopted in October 1970 by the United Nations General Assembly. It was emphasised that

.

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.
​

.​

Yes, hummm. So Israel, on invitation by the Allied Powers having the Title and Rights to the territory, did not violate Arab Palestinian Right and did not commit and act of aggression.

There is that external interference that you love so much.
The title and rights were transferred to the new states. No foreign intervention was mentioned.

(COMMENT)

It is clear to me here, that you do not know what is meant by foreign interference. Title and rights over the territory are not transferred in accordance with the decisions of the Allied Powers and not under the coercive atmosphere generated by the population of the former Occupied Enemy Territory that was under the administration of the Allied Powers.

For example:

You constantly post about the violation of international borders.

You never mention that Israel has no borders to violate and that it is Israel that has violated Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

Again, you prove you do not understand. The line on a map is not real per se, but rather an "imaginary lines" on the surface of the earth which separate the land territory of one State from that of another. What makes it real is that "a land boundary should be easy to identify and difficult to cross." (See The Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law Page 69)

For the last half-century, the Arab Palestinians have been trying to establish through "armed struggle and Jihad" that they have some superior right to the territory. The Arab Palestinians have been holding peace ransom to coerce the Israeli population to capitulate and surrender all their territory (from the river to the sea) on the possibility that it will lead to a better regional profile.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The blue writing are links.

Also, YOU are the one who has been ducking my posts.

OK, but what part of all that addresses my post? Most, if not all of that, is irrelevant.

The question implied was how did Israel declare independence inside Palestine?

Link saying that is legal?

That is like asking if it was legal for the United States to declare independence inside North America?

There was no international law back then. Conquest was not illegal.

It is now.

With all due respect, ForeverYoung436 comparison does not fit the case of Israel.
Because it the opposite of illegal conquest, then and now.

International law vested all sovereignty in Palestine/Eretz Israel with the Jewish nation,
for the RE-CONSTITUTION of their homeland as "the trust of civilizations" -
land returned to its nation.

Who said anything about "conquest?" Maybe Tinmore did, but not I. What I meant was that Israel declared independence within a geographic area known as Palestine (although Jews have always called that geographic area Eretz Yisrael), just like the United States declared independence within the geographic area known as North America. I was not alluding to Native American Indians, but to geography. And yes, I agree that Jews are native to Eretz Yisrael. It's the Arabs who are invaders from Arabia.

 

[Mindful]

 

[P F Tinmore]

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

Indeed, "...the internal or external affairs of any other state."


Indeed, you're referring to your invented "State of Pally'land"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

Which state were they intervening in at the San Remo conference?

 

[USAF 2023]

Links?
You are ducking my post.

The blue writing are links.

Also, YOU are the one who has been ducking my posts.

OK, but what part of all that addresses my post? Most, if not all of that, is irrelevant.

The question implied was how did Israel declare independence inside Palestine?

Link saying that is legal?

That is like asking if it was legal for the United States to declare independence inside North America?

There was no international law back then. Conquest was not illegal.

It is now.

Another Tinmore lie

The International Law Commission (ILC) is a body of experts established in 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to help develop and codify international law. It is composed of 34 individuals elected every five years by the UNGA for their "recognized competence and qualifications" in international law.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Nearly every intelligent power discusses post-War strategies assuming they will be victorious. The San Remo Convention was no different from what experienced combatants did for several centuries prior to the opening of the 20th Century.

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Once the Opposing Force (the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounced all rights and title in favor of the Victorious (The Allied Powers) the future of the disputed territories were to be determined by the parties concerned (the signatories of the Treaty).

"The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other."
​

The question you have to ask yourself, who are the foreigners?

◈ The ones that hold the title and rights to the territory?

◈ Those inhabitants of the formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration?

◈ The powers that had the authority to facilitate Jewish immigration necessary to establish the national home for the Jewish people.

◈ Those that declined to participate in the establishment of the self-governing institution?

◈ Those that rejected the High Commissioner's call to provide advice and assistance in the governance and administration of the territory, formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.​

Your concept of arguing that "foreign" anything has a being on the authority to administer or rule a territory is totally fallacious.

Israeli Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the national bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be a collective unit (ie The Knesset). . . .


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

Got a link and map that shows a country called a Palestine from the time San Remo ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Nearly every intelligent power discusses post-War strategies assuming they will be victorious. The San Remo Convention was no different from what experienced combatants did for several centuries prior to the opening of the 20th Century.

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Once the Opposing Force (the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounced all rights and title in favor of the Victorious (The Allied Powers) the future of the disputed territories were to be determined by the parties concerned (the signatories of the Treaty).

"The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other."
​

The question you have to ask yourself, who are the foreigners?

◈ The ones that hold the title and rights to the territory?

◈ Those inhabitants of the formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration?

◈ The powers that had the authority to facilitate Jewish immigration necessary to establish the national home for the Jewish people.

◈ Those that declined to participate in the establishment of the self-governing institution?

◈ Those that rejected the High Commissioner's call to provide advice and assistance in the governance and administration of the territory, formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.​

Your concept of arguing that "foreign" anything has a being on the authority to administer or rule a territory is totally fallacious.

Israeli Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the national bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be a collective unit (ie The Knesset). . . .


Most Respectfully,
R

You are still pimping Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that there is no Palestine.

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Nearly every intelligent power discusses post-War strategies assuming they will be victorious. The San Remo Convention was no different from what experienced combatants did for several centuries prior to the opening of the 20th Century.

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Once the Opposing Force (the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounced all rights and title in favor of the Victorious (The Allied Powers) the future of the disputed territories were to be determined by the parties concerned (the signatories of the Treaty).

"The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other."
​

The question you have to ask yourself, who are the foreigners?

◈ The ones that hold the title and rights to the territory?

◈ Those inhabitants of the formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration?

◈ The powers that had the authority to facilitate Jewish immigration necessary to establish the national home for the Jewish people.

◈ Those that declined to participate in the establishment of the self-governing institution?

◈ Those that rejected the High Commissioner's call to provide advice and assistance in the governance and administration of the territory, formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.​

Your concept of arguing that "foreign" anything has a being on the authority to administer or rule a territory is totally fallacious.

Israeli Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the national bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be a collective unit (ie The Knesset). . . .


Most Respectfully,
R

You are still pimping Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that there is no Palestine.

Just like you pimp Palestinian unsubstantiated talking points that there is no Israel

 

[Hollie]

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

Nearly every intelligent power discusses post-War strategies assuming they will be victorious. The San Remo Convention was no different from what experienced combatants did for several centuries prior to the opening of the 20th Century.

[n]o state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

Indeed, like all of those foreigners sitting around San Remo deciding what they were going to do to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Once the Opposing Force (the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) renounced all rights and title in favor of the Victorious (The Allied Powers) the future of the disputed territories were to be determined by the parties concerned (the signatories of the Treaty).

"The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other."
​

The question you have to ask yourself, who are the foreigners?

◈ The ones that hold the title and rights to the territory?

◈ Those inhabitants of the formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration?

◈ The powers that had the authority to facilitate Jewish immigration necessary to establish the national home for the Jewish people.

◈ Those that declined to participate in the establishment of the self-governing institution?

◈ Those that rejected the High Commissioner's call to provide advice and assistance in the governance and administration of the territory, formerly under the governance of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.​

Your concept of arguing that "foreign" anything has a being on the authority to administer or rule a territory is totally fallacious.

Israeli Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the national bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be a collective unit (ie The Knesset). . . .


Most Respectfully,
R

You are still pimping Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that there is no Palestine.

You’re still not paying attention.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Again, I have not seen this "Taking Point" Paper that you refer to.

You are still pimping Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that there is no Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I am not sure if you are purposely altering the context, or if you truly have a comprehension problem.

I actually presented documentation (with links) several times, within the last month, that explained the status of "Palestine" as a "legal entity." And I presented documentation on the change to the term "Palestine" from the UN Office of Legal Affairs.

Not once did I categorically say (in context) that "there is no Palestine." And you have responded that these presentations are some sort of "Data Dump."

They are not "Data Dumps" but legitimate presentations of evidence on the topic under discussion → to prevent the propaganda mangling and mutilation of the facts (that you do so well).

I have noticed that when I don't put the Links in and identify them, you come back and ask for the links. If I do put the links in, you come back and accuse me of making a data dump. I realize that I cannot present any set of facts on any aspect that is documented that will change your mind. But I can help others with a quick reference from legitimate sources on the topic under discussion. I also notice that you have a habit of manipulating the facts and changing context. In this last week (maybe ten days) you took an excerpt from the Lausanne Treaty (Article 30) on Naturalization and tried to transpose it to an effect on territory clauses. Similarly, you took the meaning of "concerned parties" to mean the Arab Palestinians and not the signatories to the treaty. Again, I cannot change your mind, but I can clean up your propaganda effort.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Again, I have not seen this "Taking Point" Paper that you refer to.

You are still pimping Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that there is no Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I am not sure if you are purposely altering the context, or if you truly have a comprehension problem.

I actually presented documentation (with links) several times, within the last month, that explained the status of "Palestine" as a "legal entity." And I presented documentation on the change to the term "Palestine" from the UN Office of Legal Affairs.

Not once did I categorically say (in context) that "there is no Palestine." And you have responded that these presentations are some sort of "Data Dump."

They are not "Data Dumps" but legitimate presentations of evidence on the topic under discussion → to prevent the propaganda mangling and mutilation of the facts (that you do so well).

I have noticed that when I don't put the Links in and identify them, you come back and ask for the links. If I do put the links in, you come back and accuse me of making a data dump. I realize that I cannot present any set of facts on any aspect that is documented that will change your mind. But I can help others with a quick reference from legitimate sources on the topic under discussion. I also notice that you have a habit of manipulating the facts and changing context. In this last week (maybe ten days) you took an excerpt from the Lausanne Treaty (Article 30) on Naturalization and tried to transpose it to an effect on territory clauses. Similarly, you took the meaning of "concerned parties" to mean the Arab Palestinians and not the signatories to the treaty. Again, I cannot change your mind, but I can clean up your propaganda effort.



Most Respectfully,
R

Not once did I categorically say (in context) that "there is no Palestine." And you have responded that these presentations are some sort of "Data Dump."

All people, including the Palestinians, have the standard list of rights. UN resolutions have specifically affirmed these rights for the Palestinians.

Do you believe that the Palestinians have these standard rights?

1) The right to self determination without external interference.
Yes?
No?

2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
Yes?
No?

3) The right to territorial integrity.
Yes?
No?

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Again, I have not seen this "Taking Point" Paper that you refer to.

You are still pimping Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that there is no Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I am not sure if you are purposely altering the context, or if you truly have a comprehension problem.

I actually presented documentation (with links) several times, within the last month, that explained the status of "Palestine" as a "legal entity." And I presented documentation on the change to the term "Palestine" from the UN Office of Legal Affairs.

Not once did I categorically say (in context) that "there is no Palestine." And you have responded that these presentations are some sort of "Data Dump."

They are not "Data Dumps" but legitimate presentations of evidence on the topic under discussion → to prevent the propaganda mangling and mutilation of the facts (that you do so well).

I have noticed that when I don't put the Links in and identify them, you come back and ask for the links. If I do put the links in, you come back and accuse me of making a data dump. I realize that I cannot present any set of facts on any aspect that is documented that will change your mind. But I can help others with a quick reference from legitimate sources on the topic under discussion. I also notice that you have a habit of manipulating the facts and changing context. In this last week (maybe ten days) you took an excerpt from the Lausanne Treaty (Article 30) on Naturalization and tried to transpose it to an effect on territory clauses. Similarly, you took the meaning of "concerned parties" to mean the Arab Palestinians and not the signatories to the treaty. Again, I cannot change your mind, but I can clean up your propaganda effort.



Most Respectfully,
R

Not once did I categorically say (in context) that "there is no Palestine." And you have responded that these presentations are some sort of "Data Dump."

All people, including the Palestinians, have the standard list of rights. UN resolutions have specifically affirmed these rights for the Palestinians.

Do you believe that the Palestinians have these standard rights?

1) The right to self determination without external interference.
Yes?
No?

2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
Yes?
No?

3) The right to territorial integrity.
Yes?
No?

ALL PEOPLE? Does that include the Israelis Including rights to their religious sites?
Yes?
No?