Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

In your link above referring to the Lebanese - Israeli General Armistice Agreement, you're making the case that neither the governing body of Lebanon nor the governing body of Israel existed at that time to enter into that agreement?

How / why it is you choose to make such buffoonish statements is a mystery.

Can you explain that?
Sure, Israeli is a thing not a place.
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.


buffoon
[bəˈfo͞on]
- Bing
NOUN
  1. a ridiculous but amusing person; a clown.
    synonyms:
    idiot · halfwit · nincompoop · blockhead · dunce · dolt · ignoramus · cretin · imbecile · dullard · moron · simpleton · clod · dope · ninny · chump · dimwit · nitwit · goon · dumbo · dummy · dum-dum · dumbbell · loon · jackass · bonehead · fathead · numbskull ·
    [more]
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

In your link above referring to the Lebanese - Israeli General Armistice Agreement, you're making the case that neither the governing body of Lebanon nor the governing body of Israel existed at that time to enter into that agreement?

How / why it is you choose to make such buffoonish statements is a mystery.

Can you explain that?
Sure, Israeli is a thing not a place.
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.


buffoon
[bəˈfo͞on]
- Bing
NOUN
  1. a ridiculous but amusing person; a clown.
    synonyms:
    idiot · halfwit · nincompoop · blockhead · dunce · dolt · ignoramus · cretin · imbecile · dullard · moron · simpleton · clod · dope · ninny · chump · dimwit · nitwit · goon · dumbo · dummy · dum-dum · dumbbell · loon · jackass · bonehead · fathead · numbskull ·
    [more]
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.
That is true.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

In your link above referring to the Lebanese - Israeli General Armistice Agreement, you're making the case that neither the governing body of Lebanon nor the governing body of Israel existed at that time to enter into that agreement?

How / why it is you choose to make such buffoonish statements is a mystery.

Can you explain that?
Sure, Israeli is a thing not a place.
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.


buffoon
[bəˈfo͞on]
- Bing
NOUN
  1. a ridiculous but amusing person; a clown.
    synonyms:
    idiot · halfwit · nincompoop · blockhead · dunce · dolt · ignoramus · cretin · imbecile · dullard · moron · simpleton · clod · dope · ninny · chump · dimwit · nitwit · goon · dumbo · dummy · dum-dum · dumbbell · loon · jackass · bonehead · fathead · numbskull ·
    [more]
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.
That is true.
Such a silly spammer.

What conspiracy theory can you present for the document here:Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

In your link above referring to the Lebanese - Israeli General Armistice Agreement, you're making the case that neither the governing body of Lebanon nor the governing body of Israel existed at that time to enter into that agreement?

How / why it is you choose to make such buffoonish statements is a mystery.

Can you explain that?
Sure, Israeli is a thing not a place.
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.


buffoon
[bəˈfo͞on]
- Bing
NOUN
  1. a ridiculous but amusing person; a clown.
    synonyms:
    idiot · halfwit · nincompoop · blockhead · dunce · dolt · ignoramus · cretin · imbecile · dullard · moron · simpleton · clod · dope · ninny · chump · dimwit · nitwit · goon · dumbo · dummy · dum-dum · dumbbell · loon · jackass · bonehead · fathead · numbskull ·
    [more]
So then, Egyptian is a thing, not a place.
That is true.
Indeed, now we can return to your claim about those ''new states'' (new states™️)you insist were created but failed to identify.

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,434
Reaction score
2,759
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some URL Links are more useful than others.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those cases where I think you are intentionally deceptive.

◈ S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL 24 February 1949 at Rhodes​
◈ S/1296 23 March 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL 23 March 1949 at Ras En Naqura​
◈ S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JORDAN AND ISRAEL 3 April 1949, at Rhodes​
◈ S/1353 20 July 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA 20 July 1949 Hill 232, near Mahanayim​

In addition to each one of these Agreements on the register with UNISPAL database showing the formal Title indicating a principal party being "Isreal," each agreement was signed as the register shows as: "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT."

LOGIC:
I would also like to point out that one does not have to mention a territory by "name" in order to identify it. The big, bright starlight refection, ball-shaped, natural body with an orbital distance of 238,855 miles, on a 27.3 day orbital period is a Moon with no name (just Moon). --- Every other moon in the solar system has a name, except for the Moon that orbits the Sun third planet from the G2V star that has no name of its own, apart from “the Sun”. But just because the Moon and the Sun do not have proper names, does not mean they are not there. Even if the State of Israel was not identified in the Armistice, the continuous line of prominent landmarks and Grid Coordinates would have identified it.

What I find remarkable is that you (somehow) totally missed common recorded history. That singularly strikes a huge blow to your credibility.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.

The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
I would also like to point out that one does not have to mention a territory by "name" in order to identify it.
Do you mean like Palestine not being named in the Treaty of Lausanne just like the other new states in that region were not named?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.

The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
So... that long, tedious copy and paste was intended to deflect.
The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.

“Palestinian“ is a thing, not a place. That is consistent with your earlier argument. Secondly, there was no defined territory established as Pal territory.

Indeed, now we can return to your claim about those ''new states'' (new states™️)you insist were created but failed to identify.

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some URL Links are more useful than others.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those cases where I think you are intentionally deceptive.

◈ S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL 24 February 1949 at Rhodes​
◈ S/1296 23 March 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL 23 March 1949 at Ras En Naqura​
◈ S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JORDAN AND ISRAEL 3 April 1949, at Rhodes​
◈ S/1353 20 July 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA 20 July 1949 Hill 232, near Mahanayim​

In addition to each one of these Agreements on the register with UNISPAL database showing the formal Title indicating a principal party being "Isreal," each agreement was signed as the register shows as: "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT."

LOGIC:
I would also like to point out that one does not have to mention a territory by "name" in order to identify it. The big, bright starlight refection, ball-shaped, natural body with an orbital distance of 238,855 miles, on a 27.3 day orbital period is a Moon with no name (just Moon). --- Every other moon in the solar system has a name, except for the Moon that orbits the Sun third planet from the G2V star that has no name of its own, apart from “the Sun”. But just because the Moon and the Sun do not have proper names, does not mean they are not there. Even if the State of Israel was not identified in the Armistice, the continuous line of prominent landmarks and Grid Coordinates would have identified it.

What I find remarkable is that you (somehow) totally missed common recorded history. That singularly strikes a huge blow to your credibility.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
Israel was mentioned in the cover letters but not in the agreements themselves.

Also, the international borders of Palestine with its neighbors were mentioned. No borders for Israel were mentioned.

Also, the agreements stated peace in Palestine. They did not say peace in Israel or peace in Israel/Palestine.
:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :confused-84::confused-84:
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
I would also like to point out that one does not have to mention a territory by "name" in order to identify it.
Do you mean like Palestine not being named in the Treaty of Lausanne just like the other new states in that region were not named?
Do you mean like Egypt, Lebanon and Israel not being named in armistice agreements... when they were obviously named?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some URL Links are more useful than others.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those cases where I think you are intentionally deceptive.

◈ S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL 24 February 1949 at Rhodes​
◈ S/1296 23 March 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL 23 March 1949 at Ras En Naqura​
◈ S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JORDAN AND ISRAEL 3 April 1949, at Rhodes​
◈ S/1353 20 July 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA 20 July 1949 Hill 232, near Mahanayim​

In addition to each one of these Agreements on the register with UNISPAL database showing the formal Title indicating a principal party being "Isreal," each agreement was signed as the register shows as: "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT."

LOGIC:
I would also like to point out that one does not have to mention a territory by "name" in order to identify it. The big, bright starlight refection, ball-shaped, natural body with an orbital distance of 238,855 miles, on a 27.3 day orbital period is a Moon with no name (just Moon). --- Every other moon in the solar system has a name, except for the Moon that orbits the Sun third planet from the G2V star that has no name of its own, apart from “the Sun”. But just because the Moon and the Sun do not have proper names, does not mean they are not there. Even if the State of Israel was not identified in the Armistice, the continuous line of prominent landmarks and Grid Coordinates would have identified it.

What I find remarkable is that you (somehow) totally missed common recorded history. That singularly strikes a huge blow to your credibility.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
Israel was mentioned in the cover letters but not in the agreements themselves.

Also, the international borders of Palestine with its neighbors were mentioned. No borders for Israel were mentioned.

Also, the agreements stated peace in Palestine. They did not say peace in Israel or peace in Israel/Palestine.
:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :confused-84::confused-84:
Indeed, Israel was identified specifically in the agreements. Dwelling in some alternate reality doesn’t create alternate facts.

So a link to those new states (new states™️) you have invented would be fabulous.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.

The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
So... that long, tedious copy and paste was intended to deflect.
The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.

“Palestinian“ is a thing, not a place. That is consistent with your earlier argument. Secondly, there was no defined territory established as Pal territory.

Indeed, now we can return to your claim about those ''new states'' (new states™️)you insist were created but failed to identify.

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
You are soooooo confused.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.

The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
So... that long, tedious copy and paste was intended to deflect.
The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.

“Palestinian“ is a thing, not a place. That is consistent with your earlier argument. Secondly, there was no defined territory established as Pal territory.

Indeed, now we can return to your claim about those ''new states'' (new states™️)you insist were created but failed to identify.

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
You are soooooo confused.
I haven’t invented any new states, (new states™️). Why the need to spam the thread with falsehoods, misinformation and invented versions of history?

Indeed,

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,271
Reaction score
2,632
Points
1,815
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.

The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
So... that long, tedious copy and paste was intended to deflect.
The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.

“Palestinian“ is a thing, not a place. That is consistent with your earlier argument. Secondly, there was no defined territory established as Pal territory.

Indeed, now we can return to your claim about those ''new states'' (new states™️)you insist were created but failed to identify.

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
You are soooooo confused.
I haven’t invented any new states, (new states™️). Why the need to spam the thread with falsehoods, misinformation and invented versions of history?

Indeed,

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
You need more help than I can give you.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,216
Reaction score
4,400
Points
1,130
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

While it is futile to suggest that anyone hold you to a consistent, rational, linear progression of assertions and facts that will form a coherent argument, we see you have again refuted your own argument. With regard to your buffoonish claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented your imaginary 'country of Pal'istan', resolve that argument with how you frame the nonsense claims related to the links you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a part of the process. A basic tenant of International law is that a people and their land cannot be separated.

The Allied Powers decided that the region would be divided into five new states. The international borders of those new states were defined by treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the territories to the respective states. It also stated, in compliance with international law, that the people would be nationals of the respective states to which the territory was transferred. Following international law, the Palestine Citizenship Order granted the Palestinians citizenship in Palestine.

The Palestinians, as with any other people inside their defined territory, have inherent inalienable rights. The right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty. The right to territorial integrity. These rights have been reiterate by subsequent UN resolutions.

No foreign power has the authority to violate those basic rights.
So... that long, tedious copy and paste was intended to deflect.
The Treaty of Lausanne does not identify ''Palestine''. Consider that in the context of your silly excuse for an argument above.

No place called "Palestine" mentioned.

“Palestinian“ is a thing, not a place. That is consistent with your earlier argument. Secondly, there was no defined territory established as Pal territory.

Indeed, now we can return to your claim about those ''new states'' (new states™️)you insist were created but failed to identify.

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
You are soooooo confused.
I haven’t invented any new states, (new states™️). Why the need to spam the thread with falsehoods, misinformation and invented versions of history?

Indeed,

Link to those new states? (new states™️)
You need more help than I can give you.
You could help yourself by presenting a defendable argument.

To insist that nations and treaties don’t exist despite the documents being readily available is rather silly and time wasting.

Link to those new states (new states™️) you claim exist?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,162
Reaction score
11,819
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Today, it is no longer a conflict which is an extension of the 1948 War. The Armistice Agreements (from which the Armistice Lines were derived) were only to "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
Has nothing to do with Palestine.
Remember when you said none of the Armistice Agreements mentioned Israel
and I showed that all of them did?

That was great, wasn't it?
Not true but carry on.
Do you have amnesia or Alzheimer's? Both?
Do I have to post those links again?
The links where you said Israel isn't mentioned?

Yes, that would be great!!!
No place called Israel mentioned.

Just looking at the first one......

1606492655195.png


I noticed the word Israeli in the title. No mention of Palestinian. Weird.

And then in article VI....

1606492732618.png


And Article VII

1606492777495.png


But why take the word of the Avalon Project when I can go directly to the UN?

1606493009219.png


S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949 (un.org)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top