No freedom of expression in Gaza

[RoccoR]

Sweet_Caroline, et al,

I'm sure that one of those Israeli Laws covers this.
For more information see: Acquisition of Israeli Nationality - Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Weren't the inhabitants at the time offered to be made full citizens of the Jewish State, and if not could you show me a link as to why not.

(COMMENT)

Israel is a fairly straightforward approach:

• Birth
• The Law of Return
• Residence
• Naturalization

(a) A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen and who does not become a Israel national under section 2, shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of the establishment of the State if -

(1) he was registered on the 4th Adar, 5712 (1st March 1952) as an inhabitant under the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance, 5709-1949(2); and
(2) he is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law; and
(3) he was in Israel, or in an area which became Israel territory after the establishment of the State, from the day of the establishment of the State to the day of the coming into force of this Law, or entered Israel legally during that period.​

(b) A person born after the establishment of the State who is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law, and whose father or mother becomes an Israel national under subsection (a), shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of his birth.​

I think I discussed this in Post Number 7599326.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

It is one Israeli Lawyer who discovered the document. The land was meant for the Jews according to the San Remo Mandate of 1922.. The fact that the arabs living in the land attacked the Jews on numerous occasions when in fact they had been given land for themselves elsewhere shows that the Jews did their best in a bad situation. The Hebron massacre comes to mind.

It was one Israeli lawyer who interpreted it as a mandate giving the entire land to the Jews.

But what is ignored is:
San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

So...if it ALL belongs to the Jews, then all the inhabitants should be made full Israeli citizens.

Weren't the inhabitants at the time offered to be made full citizens of the Jewish State, and if not could you show me a link as to why not.

In the West Bank and Gaza?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

It was one Israeli lawyer who interpreted it as a mandate giving the entire land to the Jews.

But what is ignored is:
San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

So...if it ALL belongs to the Jews, then all the inhabitants should be made full Israeli citizens.

Weren't the inhabitants at the time offered to be made full citizens of the Jewish State, and if not could you show me a link as to why not.

IF you buy into the validity of that (and it's basically one Israeli lawyer who puts forth the argument), then you must also accept the fact that they were required to respect the indiginous Arab character of the land and that they should make the people within those territories full fledged citizens. They have not. Which could validate the arguments that it is apartheid.


In the West Bank and Gaza?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Probably not.

In the West Bank and Gaza?

(COMMENT)

When Israel declared independence, it did it IAW the outline in GA Resolution 181(II), and the Map - Annex A.

I am not sure if Israel's offer extended to the entire territory base on the Armistice lines of 1949 - Map.

However, neither cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip; so my thought would be, based on what I understand of the Israeli Nationality Law, NO! And this would be very normal. States don't normally extend citizenship to populations outside their borders.

But the official answer can be obtained from the Israeli Consular General. However, due to sanctions all consular services are suspended until further notice, except in cases of extreme emergency.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Probably not.

In the West Bank and Gaza?

(COMMENT)

When Israel declared independence, it did it IAW the outline in GA Resolution 181(II), and the Map - Annex A.

I am not sure if Israel's offer extended to the entire territory base on the Armistice lines of 1949 - Map.

However, neither cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip; so my thought would be, based on what I understand of the Israeli Nationality Law, NO! And this would be very normal. States don't normally extend citizenship to populations outside their borders.

But the official answer can be obtained from the Israeli Consular General. However, due to sanctions all consular services are suspended until further notice, except in cases of extreme emergency.

Most Respectfully,
R

States don't normally extend citizenship to populations outside their borders.

So what about Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lipush, et al,

I will be the first to admit, that never has there been a more confusing piece of ground on the matter of who controls what.

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

They do not have self-determination. They live under Israeli military law.

From Wikipedia:
Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation.[5][2]

How is it not an occupation?

Shavua Tov.

When it is your homeland, how can you be illegal occupier?

(COMMENT)

• In my view, I look at both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as individual territories under limited autonomous authority; but, separate and distinct.
  
• In my view, I see the Gaza Strip under security quarantine. A demonstrated threat that need to be contained.
  
• I see the West Bank under limited occupation and heavy border control to prevent penetration of sovereignty and to create a buffer zone between Israel and a former Arab aggressor state.

But more importantly, I see all sides to this dispute as active belligerents; aggravating the situation and one another.

Most Respectfully,
R

I will be the first to admit, that never has there been a more confusing piece of ground on the matter of who controls what.

And control is not sovereignty, it is occupation.

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

And it is illegal to acquire territory in war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Fatah like all ME countries and clans operate on a quasi corrupt buddy system almost Mafiosi. It is going to take many many years for the cultural mind-set in the ME to change...

I agree and that is one reason it is so hard to get rid of corruption in those countries.

Speaking of hard to get rid of corruption:

Howizzit that Fatah lost the nationwide election but still rules the West Bank?

Anyone?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, et al,

Yes, this is a confusing accusation.

I will be the first to admit, that never has there been a more confusing piece of ground on the matter of who controls what.

And control is not sovereignty, it is occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.

Israel took the territory in war. It holds it still. That does rather make it an occupation - overplayed or not and irregardless of whether it was "occupied" by other forces previously.

And it is illegal to acquire territory in war.

(COMMENT)

At the start of the 1967 War, Jordan Occupied the West Bank. The began with engagements between Israel and Egypt. Then Jordan jumped into the War on the side of the Egyptian. At the conclusion of hostilities, Israel had driven Jordanian force back into Jordan and occupied the West Bank. The Jordanian intervention was an aggressive action against the Sovereign State of Israel which invoked Article 51 - CHAPTER VII, UN Charter and the right of self defense. The Occupation of the West Bank was a result of hot pursuit of enemy aggressor forces which initiated the assault.

With respect to the allegation that Israel made an acquisition of territory in war, there are generally three (3) international law that are invoked.

Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

SOURCE: A/RES/3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974

The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

SOURCE: Rome Statues - International Criminal Court

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:

(a) Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the Charter.​

SOURCE: DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS

Under A/RES/3314, the key is that the illegal acquisition is "resulting from aggression." Israel was not the aggressor.

Under Article 8, RS-ICC, the key is that the illegal acquisition was "resulting from such invasion or attack." Israel was in the defense, and not launching an invasion or on the attack.

Under A/RES/2625 The Principles, the key is that "military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the UN Charter." "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack" by the Jordanians on the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, et al,

Yes, this is a confusing accusation.

I will be the first to admit, that never has there been a more confusing piece of ground on the matter of who controls what.

And control is not sovereignty, it is occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.




(COMMENT)

At the start of the 1967 War, Jordan Occupied the West Bank. The began with engagements between Israel and Egypt. Then Jordan jumped into the War on the side of the Egyptian. At the conclusion of hostilities, Israel had driven Jordanian force back into Jordan and occupied the West Bank. The Jordanian intervention was an aggressive action against the Sovereign State of Israel which invoked Article 51 - CHAPTER VII, UN Charter and the right of self defense. The Occupation of the West Bank was a result of hot pursuit of enemy aggressor forces which initiated the assault.

With respect to the allegation that Israel made an acquisition of territory in war, there are generally three (3) international law that are invoked.

The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

SOURCE: Rome Statues - International Criminal Court

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:

(a) Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the Charter.​

SOURCE: DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS

Under A/RES/3314, the key is that the illegal acquisition is "resulting from aggression." Israel was not the aggressor.

Under Article 8, RS-ICC, the key is that the illegal acquisition was "resulting from such invasion or attack." Israel was in the defense, and not launching an invasion or on the attack.

Under A/RES/2625 The Principles, the key is that "military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the UN Charter." "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack" by the Jordanians on the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

I thought we were discussing the war against Palestine in '47-'48.

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.

Where were Israel's international borders in '48 or '67?

 

[High_Gravity]

Gaza is so peace loving, free and tolerant, it reminds me of Paris.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I get confused.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, et al,

Yes, this is a confusing accusation.

And control is not sovereignty, it is occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.




(COMMENT)

At the start of the 1967 War, Jordan Occupied the West Bank. The began with engagements between Israel and Egypt. Then Jordan jumped into the War on the side of the Egyptian. At the conclusion of hostilities, Israel had driven Jordanian force back into Jordan and occupied the West Bank. The Jordanian intervention was an aggressive action against the Sovereign State of Israel which invoked Article 51 - CHAPTER VII, UN Charter and the right of self defense. The Occupation of the West Bank was a result of hot pursuit of enemy aggressor forces which initiated the assault.

With respect to the allegation that Israel made an acquisition of territory in war, there are generally three (3) international law that are invoked.

Under A/RES/3314, the key is that the illegal acquisition is "resulting from aggression." Israel was not the aggressor.

Under Article 8, RS-ICC, the key is that the illegal acquisition was "resulting from such invasion or attack." Israel was in the defense, and not launching an invasion or on the attack.

Under A/RES/2625 The Principles, the key is that "military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the UN Charter." "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack" by the Jordanians on the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

I thought we were discussing the war against Palestine in '47-'48.

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.

Where were Israel's international borders in '48 or '67?

(COMMENT)

On mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders were as specified in the GA Resolution 181(II), as declared in the cable to the UN.

Map,Territories Occupied by Israel since June 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I get confused.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, et al,

Yes, this is a confusing accusation.


(COMMENT)

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.




(COMMENT)

At the start of the 1967 War, Jordan Occupied the West Bank. The began with engagements between Israel and Egypt. Then Jordan jumped into the War on the side of the Egyptian. At the conclusion of hostilities, Israel had driven Jordanian force back into Jordan and occupied the West Bank. The Jordanian intervention was an aggressive action against the Sovereign State of Israel which invoked Article 51 - CHAPTER VII, UN Charter and the right of self defense. The Occupation of the West Bank was a result of hot pursuit of enemy aggressor forces which initiated the assault.

With respect to the allegation that Israel made an acquisition of territory in war, there are generally three (3) international law that are invoked.

Under A/RES/3314, the key is that the illegal acquisition is "resulting from aggression." Israel was not the aggressor.

Under Article 8, RS-ICC, the key is that the illegal acquisition was "resulting from such invasion or attack." Israel was in the defense, and not launching an invasion or on the attack.

Under A/RES/2625 The Principles, the key is that "military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the UN Charter." "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack" by the Jordanians on the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

I thought we were discussing the war against Palestine in '47-'48.

This is a standard reply based Article 13 of the Covenant and Articles 2, 19 and 20, of the Charter. It has no basis in law. "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." (A/RES/2625) It is an attempt to selectively use of international law.

Where were Israel's international borders in '48 or '67?

(COMMENT)

On mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders were as specified in the GA Resolution 181(II), as declared in the cable to the UN.

Map,Territories Occupied by Israel since June 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel never accepted resolution 181. Those proposed borders never became borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

On what do you base this opinion on?

Israel never accepted resolution 181. Those proposed borders never became borders.

(COMMENT)

I get an entirely different impression from Mr. Abba Eban, the Representative of Israel, at UN Hearings.

Mr. EBAN (Israel) understood that the questions raised in connexion with Israel's application for membership in the United Nations were being discussed in the light of the compliance of Israel with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.

He recalled that on 29 November 1948, Israel's application for membership in the United Nations had been submitted to the Security Council in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Charter.1/ On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel had proclaimed its independence, in accordance with the explicit instructions of the General Assembly itself.

He recalled that the Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 contained a recommendation that when either State envisaged by that resolution had made its independence effective, "sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations".

SOURCE: A/AC.24/SR.45 5 May 1949

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Rocco , speaking of border, does Palestine right now have agreed territorial borders??

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I get confused.

I thought we were discussing the war against Palestine in '47-'48.



Where were Israel's international borders in '48 or '67?

(COMMENT)

On mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders were as specified in the GA Resolution 181(II), as declared in the cable to the UN.

Map,Territories Occupied by Israel since June 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel never accepted resolution 181. Those proposed borders never became borders.

Oh really?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I get confused.


(COMMENT)

On mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders were as specified in the GA Resolution 181(II), as declared in the cable to the UN.

Map,Territories Occupied by Israel since June 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel never accepted resolution 181. Those proposed borders never became borders.

Oh really?

Really.

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

We don't know.

Rocco , speaking of border, does Palestine right now have agreed territorial borders??

(COMMENT)

All the border lines are in dispute by somebody. And the Palestinians do not have a single voice. The Office of the Permanent Observer was support to be the outlet for the official voice. But it doesn't seem to be the case.

Currently, there is no one documented position, stance, or policy (on the dispute) from the Palestinians that has been made public.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

On what do you base this opinion on?

Israel never accepted resolution 181. Those proposed borders never became borders.

(COMMENT)

I get an entirely different impression from Mr. Abba Eban, the Representative of Israel, at UN Hearings.

Mr. EBAN (Israel) understood that the questions raised in connexion with Israel's application for membership in the United Nations were being discussed in the light of the compliance of Israel with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.

He recalled that on 29 November 1948, Israel's application for membership in the United Nations had been submitted to the Security Council in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Charter.1/ On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel had proclaimed its independence, in accordance with the explicit instructions of the General Assembly itself.

He recalled that the Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 contained a recommendation that when either State envisaged by that resolution had made its independence effective, "sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations".

SOURCE: A/AC.24/SR.45 5 May 1949

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel did not accept the rights of the indigenous.

Israel did not accept the proposed borders.

Israel did not accept an international Jerusalem.

What did Israel accept?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel never accepted resolution 181. Those proposed borders never became borders.

Oh really?

Really.

That's good then because it was illegal anyway and a violation of the San Remo Mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, et al,

We don't know.

Rocco , speaking of border, does Palestine right now have agreed territorial borders??

(COMMENT)

All the border lines are in dispute by somebody. And the Palestinians do not have a single voice. The Office of the Permanent Observer was support to be the outlet for the official voice. But it doesn't seem to be the case.

Currently, there is no one documented position, stance, or policy (on the dispute) from the Palestinians that has been made public.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who disputes Palestine's international borders?