Amazing military journey of the Jewish State

[P F Tinmore]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

 

[Hollie]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Israel has experienced various levels of Islamic terrorist attacks before and after Oslo.

This is a good interview

 

[P F Tinmore]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Israel has experienced various levels of Islamic terrorist attacks before and after Oslo.

This is a good interview

Indeed, the Palestinians have been resisting Zionist settler colonialism for a hundred years.

 

[Hollie]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Israel has experienced various levels of Islamic terrorist attacks before and after Oslo.

This is a good interview

Indeed, the Palestinians have been resisting Zionist settler colonialism for a hundred years.

Indeed, the muhammedans have been attempting to inflict the writ of an Arab warlord on the entirety of the Middle East.

The result has been the disaster of the Islamist Middle East.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Israel has experienced various levels of Islamic terrorist attacks before and after Oslo.

This is a good interview

Indeed, the Palestinians have been resisting Zionist settler colonialism for a hundred years.

Indeed, the muhammedans have been attempting to inflict the writ of an Arab warlord on the entirety of the Middle East.

The result has been the disaster of the Islamist Middle East.

Off topic deflection.

 

[Hollie]

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Israel has experienced various levels of Islamic terrorist attacks before and after Oslo.

This is a good interview

Indeed, the Palestinians have been resisting Zionist settler colonialism for a hundred years.

Indeed, the muhammedans have been attempting to inflict the writ of an Arab warlord on the entirety of the Middle East.

The result has been the disaster of the Islamist Middle East.

Off topic deflection.

Indeed, the effectiveness and professionalism of the Israeli military and their delivery of humiliating losses to Arab-Moslem fascists leaves you infuriated.

Indeed it does.

 

[Bleipriester]

Neither Merkava IV nor the Trophy system is new.

 

[Shusha]

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Oh please. I am not going to watch an hour long video just to find out what mysterious year you think Israel committed an act of war on Gaza. Just tell me what you are thinking here so I can respond.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Gaza has experienced various levels of closure since Oslo. That is when Israel started its security barrier around Gaza. The disengagement in 2005 included a system of closure. In 2007 Israel locked the doors and threw away the key.

This is a good overview.

Oh please. I am not going to watch an hour long video just to find out what mysterious year you think Israel committed an act of war on Gaza. Just tell me what you are thinking here so I can respond.

I did that before the video. The video has some additional history that I thought would interest you.

 

[Shusha]

I did that before the video. The video has some additional history that I thought would interest you.

So you are trying to say that building a fence, after Oslo, so 1995? was an act of war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did that before the video. The video has some additional history that I thought would interest you.

So you are trying to say that building a fence, after Oslo, so 1995? was an act of war?

That is when newer things were added to what was already happening. It was kind of a turning point in Israel's war on Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

I did that before the video. The video has some additional history that I thought would interest you.

So you are trying to say that building a fence, after Oslo, so 1995? was an act of war?

That is when newer things were added to what was already happening. It was kind of a turning point in Israel's war on Gaza.

I can't respond to your points if you are coy about them. If you want to make a point, make it and be clear. If you want to say "in 1995 Israel did this and this and this and those are acts of war" -- say so.

Otherwise you are just vaguely waving you fist around and claiming Israel is "bad". Because "newer things" and "already happening" and "turning points". Its meaningless.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did that before the video. The video has some additional history that I thought would interest you.

So you are trying to say that building a fence, after Oslo, so 1995? was an act of war?

That is when newer things were added to what was already happening. It was kind of a turning point in Israel's war on Gaza.

I can't respond to your points if you are coy about them. If you want to make a point, make it and be clear. If you want to say "in 1995 Israel did this and this and this and those are acts of war" -- say so.

Otherwise you are just vaguely waving you fist around and claiming Israel is "bad". Because "newer things" and "already happening" and "turning points". Its meaningless.

So you want me to type out what is in the video because you won't watch it. You ask questions when the video has your answers.

And this is not a definitive study. It is a brief, half hour overview followed by a Q&A.

I look at your information, you look at mine, then we discuss the issues presented. That is how a discussion board works. We use it to expand our knowledge.

 

[American_Jihad]

ALLEN/BAUMAN PEACE PLAN DANGEROUS FOR ISRAEL
Putting one's security in the hands of foreign forces.
July 11, 2017

Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel

...

The PA has already consistently violated all Oslo limitations on its armed forces. It has imported prohibited weaponry, permitted armed terrorist groups to establish themselves in its midst, and armed far larger forces than permitted under signed agreements. How likely is it that a sovereign Palestinian state would be more sedulously observant of such terms than the PA has been till now?

In short, Israel cannot place its ultimate security in the hands of foreign forces, nor in the supposed security to be found in Palestinian demilitarization, nor still in the durability of any demilitarization clauses, however stringent, enshrined in a future peace agreement.

Whatever other proposals the Trump Administration might consider, it should discard General Allen’s without delay.

Allen/Bauman Peace Plan Dangerous For Israel

 

[Eloy]

ALLEN/BAUMAN PEACE PLAN DANGEROUS FOR ISRAEL
Putting one's security in the hands of foreign forces.
July 11, 2017

Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel

...

The PA has already consistently violated all Oslo limitations on its armed forces. It has imported prohibited weaponry, permitted armed terrorist groups to establish themselves in its midst, and armed far larger forces than permitted under signed agreements. How likely is it that a sovereign Palestinian state would be more sedulously observant of such terms than the PA has been till now?

In short, Israel cannot place its ultimate security in the hands of foreign forces, nor in the supposed security to be found in Palestinian demilitarization, nor still in the durability of any demilitarization clauses, however stringent, enshrined in a future peace agreement.

Whatever other proposals the Trump Administration might consider, it should discard General Allen’s without delay.

Allen/Bauman Peace Plan Dangerous For Israel

Consider the source: Morton Klein is a German-born Jew and president of the Zionist Organization of America. So, we know he expects Donald Trump to permit the continued beating-down of the Palestinian people by continuing the occupation and making it permanent. He is, after all, a member of the board of governors of Ariel University in that part of the West Bank Zionists like to call Samaria. He has called President Obama "a Jew-hating antisemite".
Israel rejects 'shameful' UN resolution amid criticism of Netanyahu
Then there is Daniel Mandel. He is the Director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy. Do not expect any balance or objectivity from this prolific pro-Israel speaker.
Speakers Bureau
This pair write of the Palestinian "armed forces"???
Israel is the most militarized country in the Middle East with a well-equipped modern army, air force, and navy. Nuclear weapons too. In contrast, the Palestinians have nothing but some crude and inaccurate projectiles in the hands of a few small groups who act on their own initiative in Gaza. Give us a break.

 

[Hollie]

I did that before the video. The video has some additional history that I thought would interest you.

So you are trying to say that building a fence, after Oslo, so 1995? was an act of war?

That is when newer things were added to what was already happening. It was kind of a turning point in Israel's war on Gaza.

What "war on Gaza"?

Is that something you saw on one of your silly YouTube videos?

 

[rylah]

ALLEN/BAUMAN PEACE PLAN DANGEROUS FOR ISRAEL
Putting one's security in the hands of foreign forces.
July 11, 2017

Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel

...

The PA has already consistently violated all Oslo limitations on its armed forces. It has imported prohibited weaponry, permitted armed terrorist groups to establish themselves in its midst, and armed far larger forces than permitted under signed agreements. How likely is it that a sovereign Palestinian state would be more sedulously observant of such terms than the PA has been till now?

In short, Israel cannot place its ultimate security in the hands of foreign forces, nor in the supposed security to be found in Palestinian demilitarization, nor still in the durability of any demilitarization clauses, however stringent, enshrined in a future peace agreement.

Whatever other proposals the Trump Administration might consider, it should discard General Allen’s without delay.

Allen/Bauman Peace Plan Dangerous For Israel

Consider the source: Morton Klein is a German-born Jew and president of the Zionist Organization of America. So, we know he expects Donald Trump to permit the continued beating-down of the Palestinian people by continuing the occupation and making it permanent. He is, after all, a member of the board of governors of Ariel University in that part of the West Bank Zionists like to call Samaria. He has called President Obama "a Jew-hating antisemite".
Israel rejects 'shameful' UN resolution amid criticism of Netanyahu
Then there is Daniel Mandel. He is the Director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy. Do not expect any balance or objectivity from this prolific pro-Israel speaker.
Speakers Bureau
This pair write of the Palestinian "armed forces"???
Israel is the most militarized country in the Middle East with a well-equipped modern army, air force, and navy. Nuclear weapons too. In contrast, the Palestinians have nothing but some crude and inaccurate projectiles in the hands of a few small groups who act on their own initiative in Gaza. Give us a break.

Actually Palestinians are equipped with:
Kalashnikov's,m-16, handguns, RPG's , explosives, vests, helmets, , and UAV's.

And no they don't operate in Gaza. Hamas/Muslim brotherhood are in the West Bank as well. They don't act only there, they go into Israeli malls, restaurants and buses and commit their 'freedom fighting' there
It's not a private initiative, but a national agenda.
The PLO-Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood have the same ideology and goal- to unite the whole of ME under Arab Musilm rule, through armed struggle.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government.

Good point. In many ways Israel is still in the invading stage of conflict. At certain times and places it kind of resembled an occupation. But for the most part it is still an invasion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

As is the case in 1948 occupied Palestine.

 

[Eloy]

ALLEN/BAUMAN PEACE PLAN DANGEROUS FOR ISRAEL
Putting one's security in the hands of foreign forces.
July 11, 2017

Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel

...

The PA has already consistently violated all Oslo limitations on its armed forces. It has imported prohibited weaponry, permitted armed terrorist groups to establish themselves in its midst, and armed far larger forces than permitted under signed agreements. How likely is it that a sovereign Palestinian state would be more sedulously observant of such terms than the PA has been till now?

In short, Israel cannot place its ultimate security in the hands of foreign forces, nor in the supposed security to be found in Palestinian demilitarization, nor still in the durability of any demilitarization clauses, however stringent, enshrined in a future peace agreement.

Whatever other proposals the Trump Administration might consider, it should discard General Allen’s without delay.

Allen/Bauman Peace Plan Dangerous For Israel

Consider the source: Morton Klein is a German-born Jew and president of the Zionist Organization of America. So, we know he expects Donald Trump to permit the continued beating-down of the Palestinian people by continuing the occupation and making it permanent. He is, after all, a member of the board of governors of Ariel University in that part of the West Bank Zionists like to call Samaria. He has called President Obama "a Jew-hating antisemite".
Israel rejects 'shameful' UN resolution amid criticism of Netanyahu
Then there is Daniel Mandel. He is the Director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy. Do not expect any balance or objectivity from this prolific pro-Israel speaker.
Speakers Bureau
This pair write of the Palestinian "armed forces"???
Israel is the most militarized country in the Middle East with a well-equipped modern army, air force, and navy. Nuclear weapons too. In contrast, the Palestinians have nothing but some crude and inaccurate projectiles in the hands of a few small groups who act on their own initiative in Gaza. Give us a break.

Actually Palestinians are equipped with:
Kalashnikov's,m-16, handguns, RPG's , explosives, vests, helmets, , and UAV's.

And no they don't operate in Gaza. Hamas/Muslim brotherhood are in the West Bank as well. They don't act only there, they go into Israeli malls, restaurants and buses and commit their 'freedom fighting' there
It's not a private initiative, but a national agenda.
The PLO-Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood have the same ideology and goal- to unite the whole of ME under Arab Musilm rule, through armed struggle.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is not engaged in armed resistance to the Israeli occupation. No-one believes that the PA can match the armaments of the Israeli Defense Force. Perhaps it is time for another intifada.