What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,808
Reaction score
2,961
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Demarcations and Borders
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Nothing written is an expressed and binding obligation that promises anything to the Arab Palestine.

Thanks for the link.

The fourth argument, asserting that sovereignty may have rested with the native inhabitants of the territories, is based on the fact that the primary objective of the mandate system was to prepare the territories for self-government and on the Council's recognition of this area as an "A" mandate (prepared for provisional recognition). The legal effect under international law of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was to make of this territory a State in which was vested legal sovereignty over Palestine.

Professor Henry Cattan maintains:

  • "All the various views which have been expressed on the point - except that which considers sovereignty to reside in the inhabitants of the mandated territory - have now been abandoned or discredited. None of the views that sought to rest sovereignty elsewhere than in the inhabitants of the mandated territory appears to rest on an acceptable legal or logical basis." 5/
(COMMENT)

None of the Allied Powers or Associate Powers made an obligation to the Arab Palestinians.


1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,925
Reaction score
2,852
Points
1,815
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Demarcations and Borders
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: When you ask me about terminology, I generally cite the Legal Dictionary terminology.


P F Tinmore said:
Do you mean like the territorial integrity of a country that has no defined territory?
(COMMENT)

"Territorial Integrity" and "Defined Territory" are only related in that they have something to do with "territory."
"Territorial Integrity" is an undefined concept. The terminology of "Defined Territory" (as used in the Montevideo Convention) refers to lines mapped out or described by a closed perimeter onto the surface of the Earth which separates one sovereignty from another sovereignty.

You keep bringing up this notion (or implication) that Israel does not have recognized, by the adjacent nations, a parameter that defines its sovereignty. Well it does and you have been given the reference before. It is just not an answer you want to hear.

Posting #18112, Who are the Palestinians? Part 2
Posting #647. Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

The Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921." From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britain (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
OK, so?
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,925
Reaction score
2,852
Points
1,815
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Demarcations and Borders
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Nothing written is an expressed and binding obligation that promises anything to the Arab Palestine.

Thanks for the link.

The fourth argument, asserting that sovereignty may have rested with the native inhabitants of the territories, is based on the fact that the primary objective of the mandate system was to prepare the territories for self-government and on the Council's recognition of this area as an "A" mandate (prepared for provisional recognition). The legal effect under international law of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was to make of this territory a State in which was vested legal sovereignty over Palestine.

Professor Henry Cattan maintains:

  • "All the various views which have been expressed on the point - except that which considers sovereignty to reside in the inhabitants of the mandated territory - have now been abandoned or discredited. None of the views that sought to rest sovereignty elsewhere than in the inhabitants of the mandated territory appears to rest on an acceptable legal or logical basis." 5/
(COMMENT)

None of the Allied Powers or Associate Powers made an obligation to the Arab Palestinians.


1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
None of the Allied Powers or Associate Powers made an obligation to the Arab Palestinians.
They didn't have to. The people of the place have sovereignty.

 
Last edited:

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
43,229
Reaction score
16,933
Points
2,320
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
Yesterday I posted how palestinian Arab terrorist Muntasir Shalabi, who shot three 19-year-old Jewish seminary students (killing one), came from the palestinian Arab equivalent of the Hollywood Hills.

His exact house has now been publicized and it does not disappoint.

But you cannot put a price on hatred.

 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,808
Reaction score
2,961
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Sovereignty
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This notion you have that territorial sovereignty has something to do with the "people of a place" is completely misguided. Governments exercise sovereignty. For most of the history
(maybe as much as two Millenium - collectively) of the undefined territory called Palestine, the sovereignty was exercise remotely by an external power. For the last 5000 years (at least as far back as 3000BC) the region under discussion changed hands by a dozen or more distinct powers. And for nearly a thousand years - immediately prior to the Great War (WWI), the sovereignty of the region was not in the hands of the Arab Palestinians.

✦ 333BC -- Alexander the Great captures Palestine.\
✦ 141-63BC -- The Jews revolted and established an independent state.
✦ 638AD -- Caliph Omar and the Seige of Jerusalem. The Rashidun Caliphate.
✦ 1517 -- The Ottoman Empire rules Palestine for the 400 years
✦ 1918 -- The Ottomans relinquish Palestine to the Allied Powers at the end of World War I.

P F Timore said:
They didn't have to. The people of the place have sovereignty
(COMMENT)

This is an example of just how absurd your focus is. While this may or may not be true of any given place and at any given time, during the time of the Ottoman Empire, the sovereignty emanated from the City of Edirne.

In most of the discussion here, we are talking about "territorial sovereignty." And that has to do with the exclusive and competent authority and jurisdiction pertaining to a defined surface area bound by a recognized perimeter.

You keep confusing the Government of Palestine as having something to do with the Arab Palestinians. And that would be wrong (
100% Wrong). The Government of Palestine was the Administrative Base for the British High Commissioner. The boundary for the territory under the Mandate for Palestine was within such boundaries as may be fixed by agreement among the Allied Powers (principally the British and French). The territory was not otherwise defined.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,328
Reaction score
5,341
Points
1,830
I see nothing in here that obliges the Palestinians to partition Palestine or to create two states.
The Arabs-Moslems occupying the geographic area of Palestine will likely never be able to form a functioning state. It’s really not a matter for competing Islamic terrorist franchises to decide about land partitions.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,328
Reaction score
5,341
Points
1,830
RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Trade Exhanges
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: We've gone over this before.


What does integrity mean?

Independent from what?
(COMMENT)

Under International Law, -
territorial integrity - While Article. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter proscribed the threat or use of force against, inter alia , ‘the territorial integrity . . . of any State’, no definition is provided as to what constitutes territorial integrity.

Together with political independence, territorial integrity encompasses the totality of what is generally seen as the internal sovereignty of a State. See Crawford , The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.), passim .

(Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 597)

It is a concept that is used for political consumption.

P F Tinmore said:
The US recognized Palestinian citizenship and passports. The US entered into a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932.
(COMMENT)

You make this mistake so many time it is becoming a travesty. The 1932 US Trade negotiations was with the Government of Palestine (AKA: the British Government).

The Passports were the same way. Issued by the British Government.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
We've gone over this before.
Do you mean like the territorial integrity of a country that has no defined territory? :dunno:
Do you mean like your insistence on promoting ignorant slogans?
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,328
Reaction score
5,341
Points
1,830
I suspect that at some point, the Israeli Government will get tired of being bombarded by the UN and the various anti-Israeli rhetoric and withdraw from the UN entirely maybe including the Geneva Convention in the process.
Good idea. Israel lied to gain membership and has ducked its obligations since.
Another of your emotional outbursts.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,925
Reaction score
2,852
Points
1,815
In most of the discussion here, we are talking about "territorial sovereignty."
The people of the place is the hinge of international law. Look at Montevideo. The core issues are a defined territory and a permanent population. You have a people and you have a place. The other items are derivatives. You could say that the people and the land are married. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated by foreign powers. The people hold the sovereignty in their territory.

Aggression, conquest, annexation, etc., etc., all hinge on this basic principle.

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
67,246
Reaction score
14,688
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
The core issues are a defined territory and a permanent population. You have a people and you have a place. The other items are derivatives. You could say that the people and the land are married. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated by foreign powers. The people hold the sovereignty in their territory.

Exactly!!

Just ask the Germans in East Prussia.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,328
Reaction score
5,341
Points
1,830
In most of the discussion here, we are talking about "territorial sovereignty."
The people of the place is the hinge of international law. Look at Montevideo. The core issues are a defined territory and a permanent population. You have a people and you have a place. The other items are derivatives. You could say that the people and the land are married. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated by foreign powers. The people hold the sovereignty in their territory.

Aggression, conquest, annexation, etc., etc., all hinge on this basic principle.

Did a Hamas politburo mouthpiece give you that?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top