Who's occupying who ?

[Phoenall]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.​

You need to get with Rocco. He claims that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was legal.

And which international law made this annexation illegal, show the law and its date of implementation always bearing in mind that you cant use them restrospectively

 

[Phoenall]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.​

Examples?

That the Jews are not Jews but Khazaars

 

[Phoenall]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

the Arab League invaded the mandated area​

The Mandate was not a place. It had no land, borders or citizens. The Mandate was assigned to Palestine. To call it "the mandated area" is disingenuous and misleading.

This old chesnut that you have been proven wrong on so many times. You confuse the LoN mandate of palestine with the British mandate. The LoN made the mandate's entities in their own right without bestowing on them nationality or government. Yes mandates as in more than one, as they extended into Africa and Europe and not just Palestine. Each mandate was given a defined area with borders that the mandated custodians resided over.


So once again the LoN Mandate for Palestine had defined borders that originally included what is now Jordan. This was governed by Britain that issued currency, passports and postal stamps while collecting taxes and other revenues. They administered the registration of land ownership and issued land deeds and title. So in a nutshell Britain administered the land owned by the LoN under a mandate

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are those that claim the argument. But actually there does not need to be any paper evidence at all. There are those that believe state is "nonphysical juridical entity," of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 wherein all you need to is to declare and set the Article 1 and Article 3 conditions:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

It does not require recognition (formal or tacit), and is independent even absent any recognition. But this is not the same as being a "Sovereign Nation."

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specificpolitical powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating itsinternal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applyinglaws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

For Encyclopedia of American Law:

Sovereign nation. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 22 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation
​

In the 21st Century, the issue of sovereignty, versus independence, has become even more complication in certain situations. The December 2001 Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty made many important observations in wrestling with the issue. It recognizes the condition in which the State of Israel is compelled to take action against the Hostile Arab Palestinian which uses the color of a Islamic Resistance Movement to launch continuous attacks against Israel itself.

2.8 A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.

2.9 At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there.

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

SOURCE: Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 IDRC - International Development Research Centre © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA 2001 as International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect Report of the CD-ROM ISBN 0-88936-960-7 1 JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980327-3
​

Even today the norms of sovereignty are described in a very simplistic manner in the UN Charter, outlined in Chapter I --- Article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention. Again the established "politically expected norm is non-intervention." That presupposes that the Arab Palestinians honor that condition --- AND --- did not set the description described in citation 2.10 supra.

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is not just merely empowerment to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Sovereignty is very much like any other authority. The implication is that a commensurate level of responsibility is attached. The ICSSI - Report (supra) outlines the trio of responsibilities which I think the Hostile Arab Palestinians fail to address. They failed to address it in the two decades that they were under third party Arab protection, and they have failed to address it in the more than two decades since the 1988 Declaration of Independence; being more absorbed in conflict to be concerned by such trivial issues:

• First, it implies that the state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of citizens and promotion of their welfare.

• Secondly, it suggests that the national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN.

• And thirdly, it means that the agents of state are responsible for their actions; that is to say, they are accountable for their acts of commission and omission. The case for thinking of sovereignty in these terms is strengthened by the ever-increasing impact of international human rights norms, and the increasing impact in international discourse of the concept of human security.
​

There is more to being a sovereign state then just making a political announcement, and calling the territory of another --- Palestinian Territory.

Your implication is that, you want to see paper, refusing to accept the International boundaries between Israel and Egypt (1979) and that established between Israel and Jordan (1995). But the real-world evidence is in a much more physical. It comes in the form of an established perimeter [(Article II in the Peace Treaty
permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) (Article 3 in the Peace Treaty that establishes the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)] in which the Government of Israel actually exercises sovereign authority.

There are two levels: i) In the legal sense; and ii) In the actually physical sense.

(SIDEBAR)

You might have noted that the ICSS not just implied, but actually established the element that for a state to become sovereign it must:

• The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare of citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign state,
• Secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with external actors, and
• Thirdly with international organizations.
​

There is a gap – a responsibility deficit – if the state proves unable or unwilling to protect citizens, or itself becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens.

This is a profound statement. In this regard, the responsibility to take such security action as be necessary to "protect" Israeli citizens from attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians has a higher priority any other political-military concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks.

These raids were done unilaterally and in every case they were condemned by the U.N. S.C. in multiple resolutions.

 

[Boston1]

UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks.

These raids were done unilaterally and in every case they were condemned by the U.N. S.C. in multiple resolutions.

I'll challenge that Challenger ;--)

Show us the specific UNSC resolutions that condemn Israel for acts of preemptive self defense.

And Remember, Jordan and Egypt were belligerently occupying Israeli territory before, during and after the 67 war. Israel is now holding a number of combatants and possibly refugees ( yet to be determined legally ) many if not all of which should be legally expelled from the sovereign territory of Israel. There is no international or domestic law which requires Israel to maintain an enemy combatant in anything more than a prisoner of war camp, indefinitely. Combatants, those aiding combatants ( relatives or say the UN ) or even those simply suspected of acts against the state may be detained, tried in Israeli courts and sent packing.

Throw the bums out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are those that claim the argument. But actually there does not need to be any paper evidence at all. There are those that believe state is "nonphysical juridical entity," of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 wherein all you need to is to declare and set the Article 1 and Article 3 conditions:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

It does not require recognition (formal or tacit), and is independent even absent any recognition. But this is not the same as being a "Sovereign Nation."

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specificpolitical powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating itsinternal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applyinglaws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

For Encyclopedia of American Law:

Sovereign nation. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 22 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation
​

In the 21st Century, the issue of sovereignty, versus independence, has become even more complication in certain situations. The December 2001 Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty made many important observations in wrestling with the issue. It recognizes the condition in which the State of Israel is compelled to take action against the Hostile Arab Palestinian which uses the color of a Islamic Resistance Movement to launch continuous attacks against Israel itself.

2.8 A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.

2.9 At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there.

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

SOURCE: Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 IDRC - International Development Research Centre © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA 2001 as International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect Report of the CD-ROM ISBN 0-88936-960-7 1 JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980327-3
​

Even today the norms of sovereignty are described in a very simplistic manner in the UN Charter, outlined in Chapter I --- Article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention. Again the established "politically expected norm is non-intervention." That presupposes that the Arab Palestinians honor that condition --- AND --- did not set the description described in citation 2.10 supra.

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is not just merely empowerment to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Sovereignty is very much like any other authority. The implication is that a commensurate level of responsibility is attached. The ICSSI - Report (supra) outlines the trio of responsibilities which I think the Hostile Arab Palestinians fail to address. They failed to address it in the two decades that they were under third party Arab protection, and they have failed to address it in the more than two decades since the 1988 Declaration of Independence; being more absorbed in conflict to be concerned by such trivial issues:

• First, it implies that the state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of citizens and promotion of their welfare.

• Secondly, it suggests that the national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN.

• And thirdly, it means that the agents of state are responsible for their actions; that is to say, they are accountable for their acts of commission and omission. The case for thinking of sovereignty in these terms is strengthened by the ever-increasing impact of international human rights norms, and the increasing impact in international discourse of the concept of human security.
​

There is more to being a sovereign state then just making a political announcement, and calling the territory of another --- Palestinian Territory.

Your implication is that, you want to see paper, refusing to accept the International boundaries between Israel and Egypt (1979) and that established between Israel and Jordan (1995). But the real-world evidence is in a much more physical. It comes in the form of an established perimeter [(Article II in the Peace Treaty
permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) (Article 3 in the Peace Treaty that establishes the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)] in which the Government of Israel actually exercises sovereign authority.

There are two levels: i) In the legal sense; and ii) In the actually physical sense.

(SIDEBAR)

You might have noted that the ICSS not just implied, but actually established the element that for a state to become sovereign it must:

• The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare of citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign state,
• Secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with external actors, and
• Thirdly with international organizations.
​

There is a gap – a responsibility deficit – if the state proves unable or unwilling to protect citizens, or itself becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens.

This is a profound statement. In this regard, the responsibility to take such security action as be necessary to "protect" Israeli citizens from attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians has a higher priority any other political-military concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Israel sits on Palestinian land.

This is an issue you have been ducking, dancing around, and smokescreening since Sep. 15, 2010.

Your posts are based on false premise.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are those that claim the argument. But actually there does not need to be any paper evidence at all. There are those that believe state is "nonphysical juridical entity," of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 wherein all you need to is to declare and set the Article 1 and Article 3 conditions:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

It does not require recognition (formal or tacit), and is independent even absent any recognition. But this is not the same as being a "Sovereign Nation."

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specificpolitical powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating itsinternal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applyinglaws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

For Encyclopedia of American Law:

Sovereign nation. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 22 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation
​

In the 21st Century, the issue of sovereignty, versus independence, has become even more complication in certain situations. The December 2001 Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty made many important observations in wrestling with the issue. It recognizes the condition in which the State of Israel is compelled to take action against the Hostile Arab Palestinian which uses the color of a Islamic Resistance Movement to launch continuous attacks against Israel itself.

2.8 A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.

2.9 At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there.

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

SOURCE: Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 IDRC - International Development Research Centre © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA 2001 as International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect Report of the CD-ROM ISBN 0-88936-960-7 1 JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980327-3
​

Even today the norms of sovereignty are described in a very simplistic manner in the UN Charter, outlined in Chapter I --- Article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention. Again the established "politically expected norm is non-intervention." That presupposes that the Arab Palestinians honor that condition --- AND --- did not set the description described in citation 2.10 supra.

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is not just merely empowerment to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Sovereignty is very much like any other authority. The implication is that a commensurate level of responsibility is attached. The ICSSI - Report (supra) outlines the trio of responsibilities which I think the Hostile Arab Palestinians fail to address. They failed to address it in the two decades that they were under third party Arab protection, and they have failed to address it in the more than two decades since the 1988 Declaration of Independence; being more absorbed in conflict to be concerned by such trivial issues:

• First, it implies that the state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of citizens and promotion of their welfare.

• Secondly, it suggests that the national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN.

• And thirdly, it means that the agents of state are responsible for their actions; that is to say, they are accountable for their acts of commission and omission. The case for thinking of sovereignty in these terms is strengthened by the ever-increasing impact of international human rights norms, and the increasing impact in international discourse of the concept of human security.
​

There is more to being a sovereign state then just making a political announcement, and calling the territory of another --- Palestinian Territory.

Your implication is that, you want to see paper, refusing to accept the International boundaries between Israel and Egypt (1979) and that established between Israel and Jordan (1995). But the real-world evidence is in a much more physical. It comes in the form of an established perimeter [(Article II in the Peace Treaty
permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) (Article 3 in the Peace Treaty that establishes the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)] in which the Government of Israel actually exercises sovereign authority.

There are two levels: i) In the legal sense; and ii) In the actually physical sense.

(SIDEBAR)

You might have noted that the ICSS not just implied, but actually established the element that for a state to become sovereign it must:

• The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare of citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign state,
• Secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with external actors, and
• Thirdly with international organizations.
​

There is a gap – a responsibility deficit – if the state proves unable or unwilling to protect citizens, or itself becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens.

This is a profound statement. In this regard, the responsibility to take such security action as be necessary to "protect" Israeli citizens from attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians has a higher priority any other political-military concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Israel sits on Palestinian land.

This is an issue you have been ducking, dancing around, and smokescreening since Sep. 15, 2010.

Your posts are based on false premise.

Palestine has not been a land for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, and as you keep telling us, became a "mandate" after WWI when it fell under British control. So I would say you're the one ducking, dancing, and putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are those that claim the argument. But actually there does not need to be any paper evidence at all. There are those that believe state is "nonphysical juridical entity," of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 wherein all you need to is to declare and set the Article 1 and Article 3 conditions:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

It does not require recognition (formal or tacit), and is independent even absent any recognition. But this is not the same as being a "Sovereign Nation."

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specificpolitical powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating itsinternal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applyinglaws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

For Encyclopedia of American Law:

Sovereign nation. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 22 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation
​

In the 21st Century, the issue of sovereignty, versus independence, has become even more complication in certain situations. The December 2001 Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty made many important observations in wrestling with the issue. It recognizes the condition in which the State of Israel is compelled to take action against the Hostile Arab Palestinian which uses the color of a Islamic Resistance Movement to launch continuous attacks against Israel itself.

2.8 A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.

2.9 At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there.

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

SOURCE: Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 IDRC - International Development Research Centre © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA 2001 as International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect Report of the CD-ROM ISBN 0-88936-960-7 1 JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980327-3
​

Even today the norms of sovereignty are described in a very simplistic manner in the UN Charter, outlined in Chapter I --- Article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention. Again the established "politically expected norm is non-intervention." That presupposes that the Arab Palestinians honor that condition --- AND --- did not set the description described in citation 2.10 supra.

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is not just merely empowerment to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Sovereignty is very much like any other authority. The implication is that a commensurate level of responsibility is attached. The ICSSI - Report (supra) outlines the trio of responsibilities which I think the Hostile Arab Palestinians fail to address. They failed to address it in the two decades that they were under third party Arab protection, and they have failed to address it in the more than two decades since the 1988 Declaration of Independence; being more absorbed in conflict to be concerned by such trivial issues:

• First, it implies that the state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of citizens and promotion of their welfare.

• Secondly, it suggests that the national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN.

• And thirdly, it means that the agents of state are responsible for their actions; that is to say, they are accountable for their acts of commission and omission. The case for thinking of sovereignty in these terms is strengthened by the ever-increasing impact of international human rights norms, and the increasing impact in international discourse of the concept of human security.
​

There is more to being a sovereign state then just making a political announcement, and calling the territory of another --- Palestinian Territory.

Your implication is that, you want to see paper, refusing to accept the International boundaries between Israel and Egypt (1979) and that established between Israel and Jordan (1995). But the real-world evidence is in a much more physical. It comes in the form of an established perimeter [(Article II in the Peace Treaty
permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) (Article 3 in the Peace Treaty that establishes the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)] in which the Government of Israel actually exercises sovereign authority.

There are two levels: i) In the legal sense; and ii) In the actually physical sense.

(SIDEBAR)

You might have noted that the ICSS not just implied, but actually established the element that for a state to become sovereign it must:

• The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare of citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign state,
• Secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with external actors, and
• Thirdly with international organizations.
​

There is a gap – a responsibility deficit – if the state proves unable or unwilling to protect citizens, or itself becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens.

This is a profound statement. In this regard, the responsibility to take such security action as be necessary to "protect" Israeli citizens from attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians has a higher priority any other political-military concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Israel sits on Palestinian land.

This is an issue you have been ducking, dancing around, and smokescreening since Sep. 15, 2010.

Your posts are based on false premise.

Palestine has not been a land for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, and as you keep telling us, became a "mandate" after WWI when it fell under British control. So I would say you're the one ducking, dancing, and putting lipstick on a pig.

So says Israel.

Are you going to prove it or just say it?

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are those that claim the argument. But actually there does not need to be any paper evidence at all. There are those that believe state is "nonphysical juridical entity," of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 wherein all you need to is to declare and set the Article 1 and Article 3 conditions:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

It does not require recognition (formal or tacit), and is independent even absent any recognition. But this is not the same as being a "Sovereign Nation."

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specificpolitical powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating itsinternal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applyinglaws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

For Encyclopedia of American Law:

Sovereign nation. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 22 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation
​

In the 21st Century, the issue of sovereignty, versus independence, has become even more complication in certain situations. The December 2001 Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty made many important observations in wrestling with the issue. It recognizes the condition in which the State of Israel is compelled to take action against the Hostile Arab Palestinian which uses the color of a Islamic Resistance Movement to launch continuous attacks against Israel itself.

2.8 A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.

2.9 At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there.

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

SOURCE: Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 IDRC - International Development Research Centre © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA 2001 as International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect Report of the CD-ROM ISBN 0-88936-960-7 1 JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980327-3
​

Even today the norms of sovereignty are described in a very simplistic manner in the UN Charter, outlined in Chapter I --- Article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention. Again the established "politically expected norm is non-intervention." That presupposes that the Arab Palestinians honor that condition --- AND --- did not set the description described in citation 2.10 supra.

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is not just merely empowerment to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Sovereignty is very much like any other authority. The implication is that a commensurate level of responsibility is attached. The ICSSI - Report (supra) outlines the trio of responsibilities which I think the Hostile Arab Palestinians fail to address. They failed to address it in the two decades that they were under third party Arab protection, and they have failed to address it in the more than two decades since the 1988 Declaration of Independence; being more absorbed in conflict to be concerned by such trivial issues:

• First, it implies that the state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of citizens and promotion of their welfare.

• Secondly, it suggests that the national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN.

• And thirdly, it means that the agents of state are responsible for their actions; that is to say, they are accountable for their acts of commission and omission. The case for thinking of sovereignty in these terms is strengthened by the ever-increasing impact of international human rights norms, and the increasing impact in international discourse of the concept of human security.
​

There is more to being a sovereign state then just making a political announcement, and calling the territory of another --- Palestinian Territory.

Your implication is that, you want to see paper, refusing to accept the International boundaries between Israel and Egypt (1979) and that established between Israel and Jordan (1995). But the real-world evidence is in a much more physical. It comes in the form of an established perimeter [(Article II in the Peace Treaty
permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) (Article 3 in the Peace Treaty that establishes the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)] in which the Government of Israel actually exercises sovereign authority.

There are two levels: i) In the legal sense; and ii) In the actually physical sense.

(SIDEBAR)

You might have noted that the ICSS not just implied, but actually established the element that for a state to become sovereign it must:

• The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare of citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign state,
• Secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with external actors, and
• Thirdly with international organizations.
​

There is a gap – a responsibility deficit – if the state proves unable or unwilling to protect citizens, or itself becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens.

This is a profound statement. In this regard, the responsibility to take such security action as be necessary to "protect" Israeli citizens from attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians has a higher priority any other political-military concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Israel sits on Palestinian land.

This is an issue you have been ducking, dancing around, and smokescreening since Sep. 15, 2010.

Your posts are based on false premise.

Palestine has not been a land for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, and as you keep telling us, became a "mandate" after WWI when it fell under British control. So I would say you're the one ducking, dancing, and putting lipstick on a pig.

So says Israel.

Are you going to prove it or just say it?

Nothing to prove, the Ottomans called it Southern Syria and didn't recognize a "Palestinian people" for the 700 years under Ottoman rule. Would you like to see some Ottoman maps? The name "Palestine" is a Christian / Roman invention.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are those that claim the argument. But actually there does not need to be any paper evidence at all. There are those that believe state is "nonphysical juridical entity," of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 wherein all you need to is to declare and set the Article 1 and Article 3 conditions:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

It does not require recognition (formal or tacit), and is independent even absent any recognition. But this is not the same as being a "Sovereign Nation."

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specificpolitical powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating itsinternal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applyinglaws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

For Encyclopedia of American Law:

Sovereign nation. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 22 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation
​

In the 21st Century, the issue of sovereignty, versus independence, has become even more complication in certain situations. The December 2001 Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty made many important observations in wrestling with the issue. It recognizes the condition in which the State of Israel is compelled to take action against the Hostile Arab Palestinian which uses the color of a Islamic Resistance Movement to launch continuous attacks against Israel itself.

2.8 A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.

2.9 At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there.

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

SOURCE: Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 IDRC - International Development Research Centre © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA 2001 as International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect Report of the CD-ROM ISBN 0-88936-960-7 1 JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980327-3
​

Even today the norms of sovereignty are described in a very simplistic manner in the UN Charter, outlined in Chapter I --- Article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention. Again the established "politically expected norm is non-intervention." That presupposes that the Arab Palestinians honor that condition --- AND --- did not set the description described in citation 2.10 supra.

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

(COMMENT)

Sovereignty is not just merely empowerment to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Sovereignty is very much like any other authority. The implication is that a commensurate level of responsibility is attached. The ICSSI - Report (supra) outlines the trio of responsibilities which I think the Hostile Arab Palestinians fail to address. They failed to address it in the two decades that they were under third party Arab protection, and they have failed to address it in the more than two decades since the 1988 Declaration of Independence; being more absorbed in conflict to be concerned by such trivial issues:

• First, it implies that the state authorities are responsible for the functions of protecting the safety and lives of citizens and promotion of their welfare.

• Secondly, it suggests that the national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN.

• And thirdly, it means that the agents of state are responsible for their actions; that is to say, they are accountable for their acts of commission and omission. The case for thinking of sovereignty in these terms is strengthened by the ever-increasing impact of international human rights norms, and the increasing impact in international discourse of the concept of human security.
​

There is more to being a sovereign state then just making a political announcement, and calling the territory of another --- Palestinian Territory.

Your implication is that, you want to see paper, refusing to accept the International boundaries between Israel and Egypt (1979) and that established between Israel and Jordan (1995). But the real-world evidence is in a much more physical. It comes in the form of an established perimeter [(Article II in the Peace Treaty
permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) (Article 3 in the Peace Treaty that establishes the international boundary between Israel and Jordan)] in which the Government of Israel actually exercises sovereign authority.

There are two levels: i) In the legal sense; and ii) In the actually physical sense.

(SIDEBAR)

You might have noted that the ICSS not just implied, but actually established the element that for a state to become sovereign it must:

• The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare of citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign state,
• Secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with external actors, and
• Thirdly with international organizations.
​

There is a gap – a responsibility deficit – if the state proves unable or unwilling to protect citizens, or itself becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens.

This is a profound statement. In this regard, the responsibility to take such security action as be necessary to "protect" Israeli citizens from attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians has a higher priority any other political-military concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Israel sits on Palestinian land.

This is an issue you have been ducking, dancing around, and smokescreening since Sep. 15, 2010.

Your posts are based on false premise.

Palestine has not been a land for the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, and as you keep telling us, became a "mandate" after WWI when it fell under British control. So I would say you're the one ducking, dancing, and putting lipstick on a pig.

So says Israel.

Are you going to prove it or just say it?

Nothing to prove, the Ottomans called it Southern Syria and didn't recognize a "Palestinian people" for the 700 years under Ottoman rule. Would you like to see some Ottoman maps? The name "Palestine" is a Christian / Roman invention.

Yeah, yeah, heard it a gazillion times.

 

[Roudy]

Wow what an answer! You sure proved the existence of this mythical Palestine that the "Zionists" are now occupying!

 

[Boston1]

OK peeps back on track.

I keep finding myself pouring through the Geneva conventions for the supporting articles on other threads so this one seems the right place since we're discussing the pali's falling under the Conventions authority

Quote

Art 111. The Detaining Power, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend, and a neutral Power agreed upon by these two Powers, shall endeavour to conclude agreements which will enable prisoners of war to be interned in the territory of the said neutral Power until the close of hostilities.

End Quote

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wow what an answer! You sure proved the existence of this mythical Palestine that the "Zionists" are now occupying!

You are missing the critical points of history.

Palestine became a successor state to Turkey upon the signing of the Treaty of Lauasanne.

The normal inhabitants of the state of Palestine that was defined by its international borders, by international legal norms, became Palestinians.

The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine.

Those who did not normally live there were not citizens.

Take it from there.

 

[Roudy]

Wow what an answer! You sure proved the existence of this mythical Palestine that the "Zionists" are now occupying!

You are missing the critical points of history.

Palestine became a successor state to Turkey upon the signing of the Treaty of Lauasanne.

The normal inhabitants of the state of Palestine that was defined by its international borders, by international legal norms, became Palestinians.

The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine.

Those who did not normally live there were not citizens.

Take it from there.

Actually that is wrong and insane on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.

There was no Palestine in the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, the British and French took over all the lands after the Turks were defeated, and divided 99.9% of the lands into Arab Muslim states, except Jewish Palestine aka Israel and Arab Palestine, aka Jordan.

Arabs refused, they started a civil war, lost, then 5 Arab nations attacked Isrsel, lost again, and since then, it's been a constant series of Arabs attacking and getting their butts kicked.

The occupied terroritories aren't really occupied at all, they're areas that ware supposed to be part of the designated Jewish state, which were regained in one of the Arab attacks against Israel.

The Palestinians not occupied, they are Arabs who sided with their brethren in trying to destroy the Jewish state, and got stuck in the crossfire. Israel doesn't owe them anything.

 

[Boston1]

Tinmore, where do you come up with this stuff.

Palestine was never a state let alone a successor state to Turkey. And I think you are thinking about the Ottoman Syrian provinces

The mandates citizen order doesn't' actually denote statehood. It just gave temporary citizenship to the mandate for legal purposes

And I'm curious, how does anyone become a citizen of a non existent state ?

None of your previous statements makes one lick of sense, as they say here in the west

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wow what an answer! You sure proved the existence of this mythical Palestine that the "Zionists" are now occupying!

You are missing the critical points of history.

Palestine became a successor state to Turkey upon the signing of the Treaty of Lauasanne.

The normal inhabitants of the state of Palestine that was defined by its international borders, by international legal norms, became Palestinians.

The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine.

Those who did not normally live there were not citizens.

Take it from there.

Actually that is wrong and insane on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.

There was no Palestine in the last 700 years of the Ottoman Empire, the British and French took over all the lands after the Turks were defeated, and divided 99.9% of the lands into Arab Muslim states, except Jewish Palestine aka Israel and Arab Palestine, aka Jordan.

Arabs refused, they started a civil war, lost, then 5 Arab nations attacked Isrsel, lost again, and since then, it's been a constant series of Arabs attacking and getting their butts kicked.

The occupied terroritories aren't really occupied at all, they're areas that ware supposed to be part of the designated Jewish state, which were regained in one of the Arab attacks against Israel.

The Palestinians not occupied, they are Arabs who sided with their brethren in trying to destroy the Jewish state, and got stuck in the crossfire. Israel doesn't owe them anything.

Instead of just blowing smoke out of your ass, refute any of the points I made.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, where do you come up with this stuff.

Palestine was never a state let alone a successor state to Turkey. And I think you are thinking about the Ottoman Syrian provinces

The mandates citizen order doesn't' actually denote statehood. It just gave temporary citizenship to the mandate for legal purposes

And I'm curious, how does anyone become a citizen of a non existent state ?

None of your previous statements makes one lick of sense, as they say here in the west

Decisions of international and national tribunals​

​

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Next.

 

[Boston1]

You've been informed about ten times that I'm aware of that the 1920 treaty you seem to fond of was superseded about three times over by subsequent legally binding agreements. Palestine was never a state. period.

It was a few provinces of the Ottoman Syrian empire and fell under the mandating authorities control as a mandated area, not a state. That whole statehood thing was supposed to be negotiated but as we all know the Arabs refused under any circumstances accept a state of palestine

your desperate use of a single 100 year old judgement by a US court just goes to show how weak your argument really is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You've been informed about ten times that I'm aware of that the 1920 treaty you seem to fond of was superseded about three times over by subsequent legally binding agreements. Palestine was never a state. period.

It was a few provinces of the Ottoman Syrian empire and fell under the mandating authorities control as a mandated area, not a state.

your desperate use of a single 100 year old document just goes to show how weak your argument really is.

What superseding documents are you talking about?

Links?