Palestine Today

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, Just so I understand your accusation...

Given that the State of Israel:

◈ Assumed Article 43 HR Authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt (respectively).
◈ Established a Peace Treaty pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt (respectively).
◈ Unilaterally withdrew forces from Gaza Strip in 2005.

✦ The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine: Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)
✦ The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate: The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)​

◈ Currently Maintains Article 42 and 43 HR Authority under the Oslo Accords for the purpose of ensuring the the inherent right of individual self-defense against armed attacks occurs currently in progress, and:

✦ Criminal Acts directed against the State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause:

◆ Death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population,
◆ to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

○ Article 1 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)
○ Article 68, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.​

(QUESTIONs)

◈ WHAT specific international laws are you accusing Israel of Violating?
◈ Under WHAT statue are you assigning Israel as a definition of a State Supporting Terrorism?
◈ Under WHAT consortium, coalition, or group are you alleging that have formally and internationally filed that held that → Israel is a terrorist organization?

Asked so that each concern might be addressed specifically...

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add more later.

Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

http://campus.zoa.org/wp-content/up...the-Rebirth-of-the-State-of-Israel-Final1.pdf

The above are just a few and do not include anything prior to 1920. There has always been Antisemitism in the Arab World

Israel's act of aggression? Keep posting

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, Just so I understand your accusation...

Given that the State of Israel:

◈ Assumed Article 43 HR Authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt (respectively).
◈ Established a Peace Treaty pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt (respectively).
◈ Unilaterally withdrew forces from Gaza Strip in 2005.

✦ The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine: Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)
✦ The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate: The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)​

◈ Currently Maintains Article 42 and 43 HR Authority under the Oslo Accords for the purpose of ensuring the the inherent right of individual self-defense against armed attacks occurs currently in progress, and:

✦ Criminal Acts directed against the State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause:

◆ Death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population,
◆ to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

○ Article 1 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)
○ Article 68, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.​

(QUESTIONs)

◈ WHAT specific international laws are you accusing Israel of Violating?
◈ Under WHAT statue are you assigning Israel as a definition of a State Supporting Terrorism?
◈ Under WHAT consortium, coalition, or group are you alleging that have formally and internationally filed that held that → Israel is a terrorist organization?

Asked so that each concern might be addressed specifically...

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add more later.

Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

http://campus.zoa.org/wp-content/up...the-Rebirth-of-the-State-of-Israel-Final1.pdf

The above are just a few and do not include anything prior to 1920. There has always been Antisemitism in the Arab World

Israel's act of aggression? Keep posting

ZOA? Do you have a more neutral source?

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, Just so I understand your accusation...

Given that the State of Israel:

◈ Assumed Article 43 HR Authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt (respectively).
◈ Established a Peace Treaty pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt (respectively).
◈ Unilaterally withdrew forces from Gaza Strip in 2005.

✦ The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine: Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)
✦ The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate: The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)​

◈ Currently Maintains Article 42 and 43 HR Authority under the Oslo Accords for the purpose of ensuring the the inherent right of individual self-defense against armed attacks occurs currently in progress, and:

✦ Criminal Acts directed against the State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause:

◆ Death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population,
◆ to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

○ Article 1 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938)
○ Article 68, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.​

(QUESTIONs)

◈ WHAT specific international laws are you accusing Israel of Violating?
◈ Under WHAT statue are you assigning Israel as a definition of a State Supporting Terrorism?
◈ Under WHAT consortium, coalition, or group are you alleging that have formally and internationally filed that held that → Israel is a terrorist organization?

Asked so that each concern might be addressed specifically...

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add more later.

Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

http://campus.zoa.org/wp-content/up...the-Rebirth-of-the-State-of-Israel-Final1.pdf

The above are just a few and do not include anything prior to 1920. There has always been Antisemitism in the Arab World

Israel's act of aggression? Keep posting

ZOA? Do you have a more neutral source?

You mean like your “. Neutral Sources?”

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

...after missiles had been previously thrown at Israel, forcing Israel to retaliate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

In Gaza, since 2000, 35% of Gazan lands were razed by Israeli occupiers to make `buffer zone`.

 

[USAF 2023]

So bad, so Sad.

Over 60 Palestinians wounded in Nakba Day protests, 9 fires along border

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - BLUF)

If there was an act of violence leading to the establishment of the Jewish National Home called the State of Israel, the violence attempting to combat foreign occupation and aggression by the Arab Palestinian, places such blame on the Arab Palestinian; both then and now.

(POINTS OF CONSIDERATION)

Now that is an interesting start.

• Article 2(4) - Chapter I - Purpose and Principles, UN Charter (1945)

• Article 34(1), Chapter II - Statues of International Court of Justice: Only States may be parties in cases before the Court.

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

• The International Criminal Code concerning "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of Article 8 bis on the Romes Statutes (Inserted by Resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010) to the International Criminal Court. ⟴

Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analog y. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. ​

• The Court of Justice declares that the General Court should not have annulled Hamas’ retention on the European list of terrorist organizations and refers the case back to the General Court. Judgments in Cases C-599/14P and C-79/15P: Court of Justice of the European Union • Luxembourg, 26 July 2017

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add later.
Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

(COMMENT)

I can appreciate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) consider ※ The Balfour Declaration, ※ The Palestine Mandate, ※ and everything that has been based on them, as either sound or valid. And much of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated) does NOT recognize the authority of the United Nations, its institutions, or its resolutions, including Resolution 181 (II) on partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine.

The dilemma here is that the "rights in question" are NOT exclusive to one side or the other. Both the HoAP and the Israeli has the very same rights.

The inalienable rights self-determination without external interference, and to national independence and sovereignty; and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State.

It is the view of the Arab League that they:

Affirm the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​

The conundrum here is that immediately following the surrender by the Ottoman Empire, and later the Turkish Republic, the Turkish sovereignty renounces all rights and title what became the territory under the control of the Allied Powers. And the Allied Powers established a Mandate, under which the territory was governed.

[EXCERPT: Article 68: Fourth Geneva Convention]
• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •
Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
[/quote]​

When did the Palestinians actually establish a functioning State?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - BLUF)

If there was an act of violence leading to the establishment of the Jewish National Home called the State of Israel, the violence attempting to combat foreign occupation and aggression by the Arab Palestinian, places such blame on the Arab Palestinian; both then and now.

(POINTS OF CONSIDERATION)

Now that is an interesting start.

• Article 2(4) - Chapter I - Purpose and Principles, UN Charter (1945)

• Article 34(1), Chapter II - Statues of International Court of Justice: Only States may be parties in cases before the Court.

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

• The International Criminal Code concerning "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of Article 8 bis on the Romes Statutes (Inserted by Resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010) to the International Criminal Court. ⟴

Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analog y. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. ​

• The Court of Justice declares that the General Court should not have annulled Hamas’ retention on the European list of terrorist organizations and refers the case back to the General Court. Judgments in Cases C-599/14P and C-79/15P: Court of Justice of the European Union • Luxembourg, 26 July 2017

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add later.
Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

(COMMENT)

I can appreciate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) consider ※ The Balfour Declaration, ※ The Palestine Mandate, ※ and everything that has been based on them, as either sound or valid. And much of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated) does NOT recognize the authority of the United Nations, its institutions, or its resolutions, including Resolution 181 (II) on partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine.

The dilemma here is that the "rights in question" are NOT exclusive to one side or the other. Both the HoAP and the Israeli has the very same rights.

The inalienable rights self-determination without external interference, and to national independence and sovereignty; and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State.

It is the view of the Arab League that they:

Affirm the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​

The conundrum here is that immediately following the surrender by the Ottoman Empire, and later the Turkish Republic, the Turkish sovereignty renounces all rights and title what became the territory under the control of the Allied Powers. And the Allied Powers established a Mandate, under which the territory was governed.

[EXCERPT: Article 68: Fourth Geneva Convention]
• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •
Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
​

​

When did the Palestinians actually establish a functioning State?

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

They never have and never will

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - BLUF)

If there was an act of violence leading to the establishment of the Jewish National Home called the State of Israel, the violence attempting to combat foreign occupation and aggression by the Arab Palestinian, places such blame on the Arab Palestinian; both then and now.

(POINTS OF CONSIDERATION)

Now that is an interesting start.

• Article 2(4) - Chapter I - Purpose and Principles, UN Charter (1945)

• Article 34(1), Chapter II - Statues of International Court of Justice: Only States may be parties in cases before the Court.

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

• The International Criminal Code concerning "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of Article 8 bis on the Romes Statutes (Inserted by Resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010) to the International Criminal Court. ⟴

Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analog y. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. ​

• The Court of Justice declares that the General Court should not have annulled Hamas’ retention on the European list of terrorist organizations and refers the case back to the General Court. Judgments in Cases C-599/14P and C-79/15P: Court of Justice of the European Union • Luxembourg, 26 July 2017

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add later.
Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

(COMMENT)

I can appreciate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) consider ※ The Balfour Declaration, ※ The Palestine Mandate, ※ and everything that has been based on them, as either sound or valid. And much of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated) does NOT recognize the authority of the United Nations, its institutions, or its resolutions, including Resolution 181 (II) on partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine.

The dilemma here is that the "rights in question" are NOT exclusive to one side or the other. Both the HoAP and the Israeli has the very same rights.

The inalienable rights self-determination without external interference, and to national independence and sovereignty; and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State.

It is the view of the Arab League that they:

Affirm the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​

The conundrum here is that immediately following the surrender by the Ottoman Empire, and later the Turkish Republic, the Turkish sovereignty renounces all rights and title what became the territory under the control of the Allied Powers. And the Allied Powers established a Mandate, under which the territory was governed.

[EXCERPT: Article 68: Fourth Geneva Convention]
• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •
Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
​

​

When did the Palestinians actually establish a functioning State?

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

Not true.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

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.

Chapter I

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - BLUF)

If there was an act of violence leading to the establishment of the Jewish National Home called the State of Israel, the violence attempting to combat foreign occupation and aggression by the Arab Palestinian, places such blame on the Arab Palestinian; both then and now.

(POINTS OF CONSIDERATION)

Now that is an interesting start.

• Article 2(4) - Chapter I - Purpose and Principles, UN Charter (1945)

• Article 34(1), Chapter II - Statues of International Court of Justice: Only States may be parties in cases before the Court.

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

• The International Criminal Code concerning "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of Article 8 bis on the Romes Statutes (Inserted by Resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010) to the International Criminal Court. ⟴

Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analog y. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. ​

• The Court of Justice declares that the General Court should not have annulled Hamas’ retention on the European list of terrorist organizations and refers the case back to the General Court. Judgments in Cases C-599/14P and C-79/15P: Court of Justice of the European Union • Luxembourg, 26 July 2017

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add later.
Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

(COMMENT)

I can appreciate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) consider ※ The Balfour Declaration, ※ The Palestine Mandate, ※ and everything that has been based on them, as either sound or valid. And much of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated) does NOT recognize the authority of the United Nations, its institutions, or its resolutions, including Resolution 181 (II) on partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine.

The dilemma here is that the "rights in question" are NOT exclusive to one side or the other. Both the HoAP and the Israeli has the very same rights.

The inalienable rights self-determination without external interference, and to national independence and sovereignty; and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State.

It is the view of the Arab League that they:

Affirm the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​

The conundrum here is that immediately following the surrender by the Ottoman Empire, and later the Turkish Republic, the Turkish sovereignty renounces all rights and title what became the territory under the control of the Allied Powers. And the Allied Powers established a Mandate, under which the territory was governed.

[EXCERPT: Article 68: Fourth Geneva Convention]
• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •
Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
​

​

When did the Palestinians actually establish a functioning State?

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Affirm the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - BLUF)

If there was an act of violence leading to the establishment of the Jewish National Home called the State of Israel, the violence attempting to combat foreign occupation and aggression by the Arab Palestinian, places such blame on the Arab Palestinian; both then and now.

(POINTS OF CONSIDERATION)

Now that is an interesting start.

• Article 2(4) - Chapter I - Purpose and Principles, UN Charter (1945)

• Article 34(1), Chapter II - Statues of International Court of Justice: Only States may be parties in cases before the Court.

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

• The International Criminal Code concerning "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of Article 8 bis on the Romes Statutes (Inserted by Resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010) to the International Criminal Court. ⟴

Article 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analog y. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. ​

• The Court of Justice declares that the General Court should not have annulled Hamas’ retention on the European list of terrorist organizations and refers the case back to the General Court. Judgments in Cases C-599/14P and C-79/15P: Court of Justice of the European Union • Luxembourg, 26 July 2017

Well, I will start with one and perhaps add later.
Acts of aggression against Palestine in Israel's creation.

(COMMENT)

I can appreciate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) consider ※ The Balfour Declaration, ※ The Palestine Mandate, ※ and everything that has been based on them, as either sound or valid. And much of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated) does NOT recognize the authority of the United Nations, its institutions, or its resolutions, including Resolution 181 (II) on partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine.

The dilemma here is that the "rights in question" are NOT exclusive to one side or the other. Both the HoAP and the Israeli has the very same rights.

The inalienable rights self-determination without external interference, and to national independence and sovereignty; and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State.

It is the view of the Arab League that they:

Affirm the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.​

The conundrum here is that immediately following the surrender by the Ottoman Empire, and later the Turkish Republic, the Turkish sovereignty renounces all rights and title what became the territory under the control of the Allied Powers. And the Allied Powers established a Mandate, under which the territory was governed.

[EXCERPT: Article 68: Fourth Geneva Convention]
• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •
Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
​

​

When did the Palestinians actually establish a functioning State?

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

The inalienable rights self-determination without external interference, and to national independence and sovereignty; and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State.

When did the Palestinians actually establish a functioning State?

You are contradicting yourself.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect the resolution was written in "politicalese."

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

Not true.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Yes, there is more than "just because they conquered it." The Arab Palestinian posed a direct threat then, just as it does now. How many times has it been said in so many different ways; the Arab Palestinians pose a direct threat to the sovereignty. And the borders need to be defendable.

But again, the general layman interpretation is not exactly what was conveyed. This Resolution (S/RES/242) does not say what you think it says. As I said, this is not enforceable on the face of your interpretation.

I can lead you to the source, but that does not mean you will understand the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect the resolution was written in "politicalese."

• The definition of "Aggression" did not become effective until the adoption of A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
14 December 1974. 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

Not true.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Yes, there is more than "just because they conquered it." The Arab Palestinian posed a direct threat then, just as it does now. How many times has it been said in so many different ways; the Arab Palestinians pose a direct threat to the sovereignty. And the borders need to be defendable.

But again, the general layman interpretation is not exactly what was conveyed. This Resolution (S/RES/242) does not say what you think it says. As I said, this is not enforceable on the face of your interpretation.

I can lead you to the source, but that does not mean you will understand the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.​

Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.