Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by Billy_Kinetta, Mar 30, 2018.
You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.
Are you confused?
Concerning the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.
And the Muslim conquests, for starters.
Unrelated issue. Has nothing to do with Palestine.
You're still confused then?
Gaza’istan is not a zip code in... wait for it.... the Country of Pal’istan which was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?
Are there any Jews in Gaza’istan?
We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".
You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.
Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.
Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).
Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.
The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.
See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.
BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.
I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.
So close, and yet so far.
Self-determination of peoples is indeed a principle of international law.
But territories are defined and re-defined all the time. There is nothing sacred or immutable about borders and boundary lines. That is another principle of international law.
Then Arabs should stop trying to take Israel by force.
RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law : free download. Ebooks library. On-line books store on Z-Library
Oh hell! I'm confused because I don't think you and I have the same definitions for these things.
I think it is difficult to interpret Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statues (ICC) or the ICC Elements of an Offense and apply it to the Arab Israeli Conflict (in either the 1948 War or the Six Day War) since the Rome Statute was established in 1998 and entered into force on 1 July 2002. So, I interested in what particular ethnic cleansing since 1998 / 2002 you are capturing?
I'm interested in knowing what you have defined it and what the "element of the offense is." If you don't have a definition and you don't have a codified set of elements of the offense, it is really difficult to enforce. Teach me how you understand this.
The base authority for this is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It does not say "Acquiring territory by force." This is just media slang for the uneducated in describing Article 2(4):
First: The Arab Palestinians could not have had any "territorial integrity" or "political independence" before 1988 → and some would argue → 2012.
Second: And the "use of force" in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip where against the Egyptians and the Jordanians. Not the Arab Palestinians. And so the Treaties with the Egyptians and the Jordanians resolved those issues. When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"
I think that absent a sound and valid argument, these claims are frivolous and an attempt to create a conflict under the color of law by manipulation the definitions and laws themselves.
Help me out here... Teach me how valid each or your claims are. Use short and simple terms as I am an old man. In fact, today is my birthday.
Separate names with a comma.