International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply don't understand how it all fits together.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK ! I'll bite...

There is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement that specifically plans to target innocent civilians.

Israel kills civilians by the thousands but whines about the onesies twosies by the Palestinians.

Why the double standard?

The Israelis are “ supposed” to accept Rockets being hurled at them without complaining. This actually increased after withdrawal from Gaza. Why the double standard?

Withdrawal from Gaza is a big fat lie.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1: What specifically do find as a lie (a deliberate intent to deceive → an intentional untruth)?

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
View attachment 167725
​

What in Gaza is actually placed under Israel Military Authority?

Most of the security measures fall within (but not limited to) the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

17. 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

• Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

18. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

• 
  
  
  • Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;
  • Commits States to hold those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts; and
  • Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other States on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy is no longer adequate justification for refusing to cooperate.

S/RES/2220 (2015)

• Expressing its determination to implement existing and to take further practical steps to prevent the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW), including in • support of other ongoing processes;

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

• Urges Member States that have not yet done so to take measures, pursuant to their national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under their jurisdiction for small arms and light weapons, including measures that may require brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering;​

Whatever mechanisms that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) now find uncomfortable is a consequence of their own Jihadism, Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, and to prevent or suppress such activity for the maintenance of regional security and stabilization; as well as the protection of the people of Israel and their sovereign integrity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign?

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

The Palestinians have the right to arms for the purpose of self defense. They have never used their arms against anyone other than their occupiers.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians CANNOT do harm and there not be consequences. The Palestinians have no special dispensation from the Charter which stipulates negotiation by peaceful means. The Arab Palestinians can be punished for both terrorist act and war crimes. They are not exempt from Article 2 and Article 103 of the Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

 

[Hollie]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

You’re having problems grasping some rather simple concepts. There is no sovereignty in the hands of “the people”, dude?, if “the people” can not or will not exercise that sovereignty, dude?

“The people”, dude, of the Bible Belt or “the people”, dude, of Appalachia are not a sovereign people of a sovereign nation, dude.

Similarly, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, “the people” (a collection of Arabs-Moslems from various neighboring states and territories), had no collective government, national identity or any other trappings of a societal structure.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply don't understand how it all fits together.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK ! I'll bite...

Israel kills civilians by the thousands but whines about the onesies twosies by the Palestinians.

Why the double standard?

The Israelis are “ supposed” to accept Rockets being hurled at them without complaining. This actually increased after withdrawal from Gaza. Why the double standard?

Withdrawal from Gaza is a big fat lie.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1: What specifically do find as a lie (a deliberate intent to deceive → an intentional untruth)?

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
View attachment 167725
​

What in Gaza is actually placed under Israel Military Authority?

Most of the security measures fall within (but not limited to) the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

17. 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

• Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

18. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

• 
  
  
  • Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;
  • Commits States to hold those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts; and
  • Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other States on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy is no longer adequate justification for refusing to cooperate.

S/RES/2220 (2015)

• Expressing its determination to implement existing and to take further practical steps to prevent the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW), including in • support of other ongoing processes;

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

• Urges Member States that have not yet done so to take measures, pursuant to their national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under their jurisdiction for small arms and light weapons, including measures that may require brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering;​

Whatever mechanisms that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) now find uncomfortable is a consequence of their own Jihadism, Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, and to prevent or suppress such activity for the maintenance of regional security and stabilization; as well as the protection of the people of Israel and their sovereign integrity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign?

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

The Palestinians have the right to arms for the purpose of self defense. They have never used their arms against anyone other than their occupiers.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians CANNOT do harm and there not be consequences. The Palestinians have no special dispensation from the Charter which stipulates negotiation by peaceful means. The Arab Palestinians can be punished for both terrorist act and war crimes. They are not exempt from Article 2 and Article 103 of the Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.​

Most Respectfully,
R

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Such as?

 

[Shusha]

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

You really should stop repeating these lies. The territory was renounced by Turkey. It was not ceded to anyone.

The RIGHT to sovereignty may be held by the people but ACTUAL sovereignty requires a government and State.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

You really should stop repeating these lies. The territory was renounced by Turkey. It was not ceded to anyone.

The RIGHT to sovereignty may be held by the people but ACTUAL sovereignty requires a government and State.

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."
​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

You really should stop repeating these lies. The territory was renounced by Turkey. It was not ceded to anyone.

The RIGHT to sovereignty may be held by the people but ACTUAL sovereignty requires a government and State.

Link?

HAHAHA! Speed dial:

ARTICLE 16.

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.

 

[montelatici]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Hollie]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, Monty. You have cut and pasted the above more times than anyone can count and you still can’t define how it applies in any relevant way.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, Monty. You have cut and pasted the above more times than anyone can count and you still can’t define how it applies in any relevant way.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It does not say Palestinian state or Palestinian government. It says Palestinian people. States and governments are the result of the exercise of rights, not the prerequisite. The people inside their own defined territory have these rights.

 

[Indeependent]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK ! I'll bite...

There is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement that specifically plans to target innocent civilians.

Israel kills civilians by the thousands but whines about the onesies twosies by the Palestinians.

Why the double standard?

The Israelis are “ supposed” to accept Rockets being hurled at them without complaining. This actually increased after withdrawal from Gaza. Why the double standard?

Withdrawal from Gaza is a big fat lie.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1: What specifically do find as a lie (a deliberate intent to deceive → an intentional untruth)?

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
View attachment 167725
​

What in Gaza is actually placed under Israel Military Authority?

Most of the security measures fall within (but not limited to) the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

17. 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

• Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

18. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

• 
  
  
  • Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;
  • Commits States to hold those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts; and
  • Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other States on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy is no longer adequate justification for refusing to cooperate.

S/RES/2220 (2015)

• Expressing its determination to implement existing and to take further practical steps to prevent the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW), including in • support of other ongoing processes;

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

• Urges Member States that have not yet done so to take measures, pursuant to their national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under their jurisdiction for small arms and light weapons, including measures that may require brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering;​

Whatever mechanisms that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) now find uncomfortable is a consequence of their own Jihadism, Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, and to prevent or suppress such activity for the maintenance of regional security and stabilization; as well as the protection of the people of Israel and their sovereign integrity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign?

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

The Palestinians have the right to arms for the purpose of self defense. They have never used their arms against anyone other than their occupiers.

Just like all the Arab delegates to the UN.

 

[Indeependent]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

"independent nations" not "independent persons".

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK ! I'll bite...

There is no such thing as a legitimate resistance movement that specifically plans to target innocent civilians.

Israel kills civilians by the thousands but whines about the onesies twosies by the Palestinians.

Why the double standard?

The Israelis are “ supposed” to accept Rockets being hurled at them without complaining. This actually increased after withdrawal from Gaza. Why the double standard?

Withdrawal from Gaza is a big fat lie.

(QUESTIONs)

Q1: What specifically do find as a lie (a deliberate intent to deceive → an intentional untruth)?

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
View attachment 167725
​

What in Gaza is actually placed under Israel Military Authority?

Most of the security measures fall within (but not limited to) the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.

17. 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

• Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

18. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

• 
  
  
  • Requires parties to take steps to prevent and counteract the financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;
  • Commits States to hold those who finance terrorism criminally, civilly or administratively liable for such acts; and
  • Provides for the identification, freezing and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, as well as for the sharing of the forfeited funds with other States on a case-by-case basis. Bank secrecy is no longer adequate justification for refusing to cooperate.

S/RES/2220 (2015)

• Expressing its determination to implement existing and to take further practical steps to prevent the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW), including in • support of other ongoing processes;

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

• Urges Member States that have not yet done so to take measures, pursuant to their national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under their jurisdiction for small arms and light weapons, including measures that may require brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering;​

Whatever mechanisms that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) now find uncomfortable is a consequence of their own Jihadism, Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, and to prevent or suppress such activity for the maintenance of regional security and stabilization; as well as the protection of the people of Israel and their sovereign integrity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign?

• Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognizedin Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations;

The Palestinians have the right to arms for the purpose of self defense. They have never used their arms against anyone other than their occupiers.

The Palestinians tried to take over Jordan, participated in Lebanon's civil war, and caused Kuwait to expel them.

 

[Hollie]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, Monty. You have cut and pasted the above more times than anyone can count and you still can’t define how it applies in any relevant way.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It does not say Palestinian state or Palestinian government. It says Palestinian people. States and governments are the result of the exercise of rights, not the prerequisite. The people inside their own defined territory have these rights.

Indeed, you have cut and pasted the above many times across multiple threads. As we know GA opinions are mere opinions. Secondly, the failure of Arabs-Moslems to cobble together a workable government or stable society capable of independence or sovereignty rests entirely with the Arabs-Moslems masquerading as “Pal’istanians“

How many more times does your silly cutting and pasting need to be addressed for you?

 

[Hollie]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, Monty. You have cut and pasted the above more times than anyone can count and you still can’t define how it applies in any relevant way.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It does not say Palestinian state or Palestinian government. It says Palestinian people. States and governments are the result of the exercise of rights, not the prerequisite. The people inside their own defined territory have these rights.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

On November 22, the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions 3326 and 3327, that recognized the cause of Palestinian self-determination and the status of the PLO as representing the Palestinian people, and gave the PLO observer status at the UN.


Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

 

[rylah]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking
(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, Monty. You have cut and pasted the above more times than anyone can count and you still can’t define how it applies in any relevant way.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

It does not say Palestinian state or Palestinian government. It says Palestinian people. States and governments are the result of the exercise of rights, not the prerequisite. The people inside their own defined territory have these rights.

Jews have rights to self determination as well.

The Jewish Palestine eventually stood on its' own, while Palestinian Arabs were busy helping Britain and Faisal of Mecca to conquer the land and then cede it to Syria.

Palestinian Arabs relied on external interference themselves -to take the land over as a whole.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(The appearance of ) Legitimacy is not an issue when exercising the "Right to Self-Determination." BUT, there is legitimacy.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is the counter argument. The anti-Government militia in the US use this same argument: " I do not recognize your authority over me; or the legal authority of the court." It does not go very far.

First, the definition of a "civilian" does not rest upon whether the Settler Activity is "legal" or "Illegal." That is simply not an issue. If it is "illegal," then it is a civil police and court matter;

What if the civil police and courts are illegal too?

(COMMENT)

In those areas of the Occupied Territories, → that have been annexed by the Knesset, → fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Security which has oversight of the Israeli National Police (INP), with its headquarters in [wait for it] → Jerusalem (East). The INP, not so dissimilar to the State Police in America, operates throughout Israel, and Area "C" (West Bank), and where there are no Local City Police.

The Israeli Judiciary has an appeal process --- and total separate --- the Police have various types of internal reviews and oversight. If anyone, citizen or non-citizen, with the jurisdiction of the INP, have what they believe to be evidence corruption or police misconduct (misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance) --- Israel has a very keen interest in maintaining the trust and confidence of the people --- giving faith in the competence of those professionals in the system --- that justice for the people (police and judicial) can be obtained through the legal system.

If you believe that you have such evidence --- that you can categorically make such an allegation, it is incumbent upon you (in some cases a necessary duty or responsibility) to bring this to the attention of the Ombudsman's Office of the Israeli Judiciary through the Office of Public Inquiries.

Most Respectfully,
R

All that in territory that does not belong to Israel.

What is their legitimacy?

(COMMENT)

The concept of the Legitimacy of the State of Israel is very often scrambled by the fact that the meaning behind it is not very well understood.

When you ask → "What is their legitimacy?" → What you are really asking "how does it conform to the law or and customary rules of the procedure of creating a "State Government?"

※ Legitimacy ※

Introduction / Definition: Legitimacy is commonly defined in political science and sociology as the belief that a rule, institution, or leader has the right to govern. It is a judgment by an individual about the rightfulness of a hierarchy between rule or ruler and its subject and about the subordinate’s obligations toward the rule or ruler.
​

It is a expectation and accepted relationship between the "ruled" (people of Israel - subordinate) to that recognition of the "ruler" (the Government). Together, these ideas (if accepted and compatible) establish the State of Israel.

Legitimacy dovetails into Self-Determination. In the case of the State of Israel, there is no specific law or threshold it must meet to achieve Legitimacy, as there are many forms of government that have a political head that is accepted as the ruler: North Korea has KIM Jong-Un as Supreme Leader; Iran has Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei as the Supreme Leader; Saudi Arabia has His Majesty Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud as King, and China has Xi Jinping as the General Secretary of the Communist Party. IF the people (within a specific boundary) accept the leadership of the nation over the same territory, THEN sovereignty is established.

The reason that the Montevideo Convention (Rights and Duties of States --- Article 3) states that: → "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states" → means it does not require the acceptance by any external authority (not even P F Tinmore). This is what is meant when the UN Charter [Article 2(7)] says: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." This passage is the unfulfilled promise of the Members of the UN not to interfere, and in fact, is the basis for the phrase: "right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference, their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; A/RES/50/172 (Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes).

Just as there is no law or threshold that would permit the rights of any proto-government (State of Palestine unable to stand-alone) to interfere within the domestic establishment of a sovereignty nation (State of Israel); so it is clear that the People of Palestine, as much as they may hate the Idea of Israeli Control, are forced to recognize the reality of effective control. And when the Arab Palestinian (as they have for the last half century) come to follow the direction f the Israeli Law, and have entered into agreements with the Israeli Government, THAT is a form of legitimacy (whether of not P F Tinmore agrees or not).

DOES Israel have Legitimacy: By virtue that it has peacefully and orderly confirmed or replaced a leadership which they Israeli people will follow, THAT is basic form of "legitimacy."

Is the State of Israel recognized? It is irrelevant. Under Customary Law, the existence of the State of Israel is independent of recognition. There is, however, 03/04/1949 S/RES/69 (1949) Israel membership in the UN.

The real question might be: When did the State of Palestine become a true State. What sovereignty does Palestine claim as under their control?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(The appearance of ) Legitimacy is not an issue when exercising the "Right to Self-Determination." BUT, there is legitimacy.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is the counter argument. The anti-Government militia in the US use this same argument: " I do not recognize your authority over me; or the legal authority of the court." It does not go very far.

First, the definition of a "civilian" does not rest upon whether the Settler Activity is "legal" or "Illegal." That is simply not an issue. If it is "illegal," then it is a civil police and court matter;

What if the civil police and courts are illegal too?

(COMMENT)

In those areas of the Occupied Territories, → that have been annexed by the Knesset, → fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Security which has oversight of the Israeli National Police (INP), with its headquarters in [wait for it] → Jerusalem (East). The INP, not so dissimilar to the State Police in America, operates throughout Israel, and Area "C" (West Bank), and where there are no Local City Police.

The Israeli Judiciary has an appeal process --- and total separate --- the Police have various types of internal reviews and oversight. If anyone, citizen or non-citizen, with the jurisdiction of the INP, have what they believe to be evidence corruption or police misconduct (misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance) --- Israel has a very keen interest in maintaining the trust and confidence of the people --- giving faith in the competence of those professionals in the system --- that justice for the people (police and judicial) can be obtained through the legal system.

If you believe that you have such evidence --- that you can categorically make such an allegation, it is incumbent upon you (in some cases a necessary duty or responsibility) to bring this to the attention of the Ombudsman's Office of the Israeli Judiciary through the Office of Public Inquiries.

Most Respectfully,
R

All that in territory that does not belong to Israel.

What is their legitimacy?

(COMMENT)

The concept of the Legitimacy of the State of Israel is very often scrambled by the fact that the meaning behind it is not very well understood.

When you ask → "What is their legitimacy?" → What you are really asking "how does it conform to the law or and customary rules of the procedure of creating a "State Government?"

※ Legitimacy ※
View attachment 167904

Introduction / Definition: Legitimacy is commonly defined in political science and sociology as the belief that a rule, institution, or leader has the right to govern. It is a judgment by an individual about the rightfulness of a hierarchy between rule or ruler and its subject and about the subordinate’s obligations toward the rule or ruler.
​

It is a expectation and accepted relationship between the "ruled" (people of Israel - subordinate) to that recognition of the "ruler" (the Government). Together, these ideas (if accepted and compatible) establish the State of Israel.

Legitimacy dovetails into Self-Determination. In the case of the State of Israel, there is no specific law or threshold it must meet to achieve Legitimacy, as there are many forms of government that have a political head that is accepted as the ruler: North Korea has KIM Jong-Un as Supreme Leader; Iran has Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei as the Supreme Leader; Saudi Arabia has His Majesty Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud as King, and China has Xi Jinping as the General Secretary of the Communist Party. IF the people (within a specific boundary) accept the leadership of the nation over the same territory, THEN sovereignty is established.

The reason that the Montevideo Convention (Rights and Duties of States --- Article 3) states that: → "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states" → means it does not require the acceptance by any external authority (not even P F Tinmore). This is what is meant when the UN Charter [Article 2(7)] says: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." This passage is the unfulfilled promise of the Members of the UN not to interfere, and in fact, is the basis for the phrase: "right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, without external interference, their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; A/RES/50/172 (Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes).

Just as there is no law or threshold that would permit the rights of any proto-government (State of Palestine unable to stand-alone) to interfere within the domestic establishment of a sovereignty nation (State of Israel); so it is clear that the People of Palestine, as much as they may hate the Idea of Israeli Control, are forced to recognize the reality of effective control. And when the Arab Palestinian (as they have for the last half century) come to follow the direction f the Israeli Law, and have entered into agreements with the Israeli Government, THAT is a form of legitimacy (whether of not P F Tinmore agrees or not).

DOES Israel have Legitimacy: By virtue that it has peacefully and orderly confirmed or replaced a leadership which they Israeli people will follow, THAT is basic form of "legitimacy."

Is the State of Israel recognized? It is irrelevant. Under Customary Law, the existence of the State of Israel is independent of recognition. There is, however, 03/04/1949 S/RES/69 (1949) Israel membership in the UN.

The real question might be: When did the State of Palestine become a true State. What sovereignty does Palestine claim as under their control?

Most Respectfully,
R

A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

The Israeli government was established with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people and was imposed on them by military force.