"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[P F Tinmore]

OK, but Kontorovich has.

Shirley, you can cut and paste a press TV produced YouTube video to refute the paper.

While you're scouring YouTube, bear in mind that the work by Mr. Kontorovich is an opinion that is subject to peer review. Outside of islamic fear societies, there is this thing called academic freedom where published works aren't subject to islamo-goons / islamo-mobs deciding over a bloody corpses what is allowed to be published outside of the egregious sin of hurting Moslems feelings™

Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.

You should require the prayer leader at your madrassah to write a strongly worded email in protest. Have it written in all caps.

So you post more meaningless clutter.

Now, dear. All of the above, on multiple occasions, in excruciating detail has been delineated for you. You make the same fallacious comments and sputter the same tired slogans.

It has become known as The Tinmore Vortex.

Like the false premise that the Mandate was a state.

 

[Shusha]

Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.

Actually, he does not say that. He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states. The borders of those nation-states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Homeland for the Jewish People (aka Palestine or Israel) were created with international frontiers from sovereign territory abandoned by the newly formed Turkey, by the Mandate Powers. When each nation became independent, its borders -- the borders created by the Mandate Powers -- became the international borders for each nation-state. The same treaties and instruments which brought about the borders in those other nation-states created the new international borders of Israel. (And those borders were confirmed in the peace treaty with Jordan, btw).

There is no treaty which breaks Israel into two parts. (At least not until Oslo.) So there is no prohibition on Israeli citizens (and certainly not on Jewish peoples, as that would be contrary to IHL) living in ALL parts of the territory, nor on Israel building on ALL parts of the territory. (At least until Oslo). Nor, either on Arabs building on all parts of the territory. (Again, til Oslo).

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that. You are one of the few who actually understand that and argue it constantly. Surely you are not suddenly changing your stripes?

 

[Hollie]

Shirley, you can cut and paste a press TV produced YouTube video to refute the paper.

While you're scouring YouTube, bear in mind that the work by Mr. Kontorovich is an opinion that is subject to peer review. Outside of islamic fear societies, there is this thing called academic freedom where published works aren't subject to islamo-goons / islamo-mobs deciding over a bloody corpses what is allowed to be published outside of the egregious sin of hurting Moslems feelings™

Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.

You should require the prayer leader at your madrassah to write a strongly worded email in protest. Have it written in all caps.

So you post more meaningless clutter.

Now, dear. All of the above, on multiple occasions, in excruciating detail has been delineated for you. You make the same fallacious comments and sputter the same tired slogans.

It has become known as The Tinmore Vortex.

Like the false premise that the Mandate was a state.

No. Your false premise that the "country" of Pal'istan (which existed only in your imagined musings) was inhabited some invented Pal'istanians who you similarly invented.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.

Actually, he does not say that. He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states. The borders of those nation-states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Homeland for the Jewish People (aka Palestine or Israel) were created with international frontiers from sovereign territory abandoned by the newly formed Turkey, by the Mandate Powers. When each nation became independent, its borders -- the borders created by the Mandate Powers -- became the international borders for each nation-state. The same treaties and instruments which brought about the borders in those other nation-states created the new international borders of Israel. (And those borders were confirmed in the peace treaty with Jordan, btw).

There is no treaty which breaks Israel into two parts. (At least not until Oslo.) So there is no prohibition on Israeli citizens (and certainly not on Jewish peoples, as that would be contrary to IHL) living in ALL parts of the territory, nor on Israel building on ALL parts of the territory. (At least until Oslo). Nor, either on Arabs building on all parts of the territory. (Again, til Oslo).

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that. You are one of the few who actually understand that and argue it constantly. Surely you are not suddenly changing your stripes?

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​

I know and I have consistently stated it.

The never answered question is why every map of Israel uses those non existing borders.

BTW, those non existing borders also follow Palestine's international borders. Those are more non existing borders of Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.

You should require the prayer leader at your madrassah to write a strongly worded email in protest. Have it written in all caps.

So you post more meaningless clutter.

Now, dear. All of the above, on multiple occasions, in excruciating detail has been delineated for you. You make the same fallacious comments and sputter the same tired slogans.

It has become known as The Tinmore Vortex.

Like the false premise that the Mandate was a state.

No. Your false premise that the "country" of Pal'istan (which existed only in your imagined musings) was inhabited some invented Pal'istanians who you similarly invented.

WOW, that is quite a feat. They actually look real.

 

[Hollie]

Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.

Actually, he does not say that. He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states. The borders of those nation-states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Homeland for the Jewish People (aka Palestine or Israel) were created with international frontiers from sovereign territory abandoned by the newly formed Turkey, by the Mandate Powers. When each nation became independent, its borders -- the borders created by the Mandate Powers -- became the international borders for each nation-state. The same treaties and instruments which brought about the borders in those other nation-states created the new international borders of Israel. (And those borders were confirmed in the peace treaty with Jordan, btw).

There is no treaty which breaks Israel into two parts. (At least not until Oslo.) So there is no prohibition on Israeli citizens (and certainly not on Jewish peoples, as that would be contrary to IHL) living in ALL parts of the territory, nor on Israel building on ALL parts of the territory. (At least until Oslo). Nor, either on Arabs building on all parts of the territory. (Again, til Oslo).

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that. You are one of the few who actually understand that and argue it constantly. Surely you are not suddenly changing your stripes?

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​

I know and I have consistently stated it.

The never answered question is why every map of Israel uses those non existing borders.

BTW, those non existing borders also follow Palestine's international borders. Those are more non existing borders of Israel.

Ya' Allah, dude. Not this silly International borders of (your invented) Pal'istan, again.

You have been corrected on this multiple times in multiple threads.

 

[Shusha]

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​

I know and I have consistently stated it.

So you agree with Professor Kontorovich, then.

 

[Hollie]

You should require the prayer leader at your madrassah to write a strongly worded email in protest. Have it written in all caps.

So you post more meaningless clutter.

Now, dear. All of the above, on multiple occasions, in excruciating detail has been delineated for you. You make the same fallacious comments and sputter the same tired slogans.

It has become known as The Tinmore Vortex.

Like the false premise that the Mandate was a state.

No. Your false premise that the "country" of Pal'istan (which existed only in your imagined musings) was inhabited some invented Pal'istanians who you similarly invented.

WOW, that is quite a feat. They actually look real.

They "look real"?

That's remarkable.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​

I know and I have consistently stated it.

So you agree with Professor Kontorovich, then.

He is not wrong all of the time. He states that there are no "67 borders" and that resolution 181 was a non binding suggestion with no legal standing.

I agree with that. I have always said the same thing.

Edit:

The agreement by a Palestinian lawyer.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well let's run through some of these.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

(COMMENT)

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document. Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression. In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee). This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement. While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

(COMMENT)

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections. And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights." In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance. Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE: Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).​

The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:

Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state (example, the West Bank AUG 1988). The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as terra nullius. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.​

it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control." It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference) has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.

Occupation is only a temporary situation,

and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

(COMMENT)

Who is arguing otherwise. It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities. The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement. However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988. The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988. During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power. The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP. For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues. I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues. In time of war, most social services suffer. It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

(COMMENT)

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP. News to me...

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

This has been discussed to death. Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase. The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that. The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

• (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact. In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small. if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small. However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted. There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

(COMMENT)

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege

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

Cultural property must be respected.

(COMMENT)

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country. Some terrorist never see the judicial system. You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.​

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

You cant claim self defense when you are the aggressor firing illegal weapons deemed a war crime at your enemies children. Every incident between hamas and Israel is down to these illegal weapons and Israel responces. It is Israel that id defending its civilians not hams, they are using them as propaganda tools

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well let's run through some of these.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

(COMMENT)

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document. Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression. In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee). This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement. While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

(COMMENT)

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections. And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights." In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance. Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE: Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).​

The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:

Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state (example, the West Bank AUG 1988). The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as terra nullius. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.​

it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control." It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference) has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.

Occupation is only a temporary situation,

and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

(COMMENT)

Who is arguing otherwise. It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities. The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement. However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988. The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988. During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power. The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP. For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues. I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues. In time of war, most social services suffer. It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

(COMMENT)

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP. News to me...

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

This has been discussed to death. Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase. The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that. The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

• (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact. In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small. if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small. However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted. There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

(COMMENT)

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege

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

Cultural property must be respected.

(COMMENT)

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country. Some terrorist never see the judicial system. You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.​

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

That's funny.

Taqiyya is not going to help you here. Islamic terrorism is not defending anyone.

You should read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in gee-had. So, I read the Hamas islamo-fascist Charter. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the Hamas Charter consistent with the islamo-fascist rambling of the Moslem Brotherhood and confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad (swish) and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's (swish) sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from islamo-sheikhs and scholars.

Are you really suggesting that 14,000 rockets fired at Israel, stabbings, shootings, islamo-tunnels, car bombings and an entire islamo-welfare fraud dedicated to furthering Islamic terrorism is simply Islamic terrorists "defending themselves"?

Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?

The founders of hamas the muslim brotherhood, the plo and the arab league. Prior to 1947 it was islam as a whole that treated them as 4th class citizens where ever they were in the islamic world

 

[Hollie]

 

[Shusha]

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​

I know and I have consistently stated it.

So you agree with Professor Kontorovich, then.

He is not wrong all of the time. He states that there are no "67 borders" and that resolution 181 was a non binding suggestion with no legal standing.

I agree with that. I have always said the same thing.

Edit:

The agreement by a Palestinian lawyer.

Yeah, the Palestinian who says that Israel has no right to exist because it is not Arab and it is at the heart of the Arab world. Racist much?

But, here we are, Prof. K, Ms. Deek, you and I all agree that the "settlements" can't not be illegal on the basis of there being two territories. Its all one territory. Until Oslo.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I agree 100%. Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.

As we have discussed before, the UN Special Committee on decolonization (C-24), was established to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)]. Annually C-24 up-dates the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable.

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

(COMMENT)

Very much like my discussion here, with our friend "Tehon," understanding the terminology and its applicability is essential. While there areas in the world that are applicable in the sense of A/RES/1514 (XV), NONE of them are anywhere near the Middle East Theater. While there may be grounds for complaint, by the Arab-Palestinian, relative to (what is often called) the "territories occupied since 1967" --- as denoted in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19), you will not find "Palestine" (as defined in the Resolution on the Question of Palestine A/RES/43/177) on the table of Non-Self-Governing Territories as created by UN C-24.

I do understand that in using the word/phrase "colonial settlements," you are mimicking the PLO-NAD perspective. In doing so, you are using a political concept of the word/phrase, as opposed to what is actually true in realistic terms.

2. Is the Palestinian leadership against negotiations? No. Negotiations are necessary to reach a final status agreement and to define the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to further colonize Palestine with more colonial settlements. The State of Palestine is committed to any and all serious initiatives to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but it is not committed to any proposals to legitimize Israeli occupation or to cultivate Israel’s culture of impunity. It is time for the international community to hold Israel accountable rather than using negotiations to disguise its inaction and failure to assume its responsibility toward the land and people of Palestine. - See more at: Questions and Answers on Negotiations and Internationalizations
​

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].

"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."
​

The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) has an excellent outline on the Six Questions for Resuming Negotiations. While I do not agree to that these questions or issues should be a barrier to talks, I think this is well worth the reading. It will help everyone to understand the "Palestinian" view-point.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting political opinions.

But I am running on the facts on the ground.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

No you are just repeating islamonazi propaganda because you hate the Jews so much and so refuse to accept that they have as much right to the support of international laws as do the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I agree 100%. Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.

As we have discussed before, the UN Special Committee on decolonization (C-24), was established to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)]. Annually C-24 up-dates the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable.

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

(COMMENT)

Very much like my discussion here, with our friend "Tehon," understanding the terminology and its applicability is essential. While there areas in the world that are applicable in the sense of A/RES/1514 (XV), NONE of them are anywhere near the Middle East Theater. While there may be grounds for complaint, by the Arab-Palestinian, relative to (what is often called) the "territories occupied since 1967" --- as denoted in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19), you will not find "Palestine" (as defined in the Resolution on the Question of Palestine A/RES/43/177) on the table of Non-Self-Governing Territories as created by UN C-24.

I do understand that in using the word/phrase "colonial settlements," you are mimicking the PLO-NAD perspective. In doing so, you are using a political concept of the word/phrase, as opposed to what is actually true in realistic terms.

2. Is the Palestinian leadership against negotiations? No. Negotiations are necessary to reach a final status agreement and to define the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to further colonize Palestine with more colonial settlements. The State of Palestine is committed to any and all serious initiatives to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but it is not committed to any proposals to legitimize Israeli occupation or to cultivate Israel’s culture of impunity. It is time for the international community to hold Israel accountable rather than using negotiations to disguise its inaction and failure to assume its responsibility toward the land and people of Palestine. - See more at: Questions and Answers on Negotiations and Internationalizations
​

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].

"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."
​

The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) has an excellent outline on the Six Questions for Resuming Negotiations. While I do not agree to that these questions or issues should be a barrier to talks, I think this is well worth the reading. It will help everyone to understand the "Palestinian" view-point.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].


"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."

Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?

Yes they do and it is part of the Oslo accords

 

[Weatherman2020]

New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.

First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.

...

It isn't just double standards. It is that the international community has created an artificial international law to apply only to Israel, even though that law simply doesn't exist in other contexts. Not that it exists and is ignored - it doesn't exist. When legal critics give their laundry lists of violations of international law by belligerent occupiers, they simply do not consider settlement activity to be illegal.

This is an extraordinarily important paper that not only reveals much about international law, but also about how much of what people call international law in context of Israel is simply a lie.

The left love ethnic cleansing and demand it be practiced.

 

[Shusha]

The left love ethnic cleansing and demand it be practiced.

Yep. And, of course, no one is demanding that Western Sahara be ethnically cleansed. Or East Timor. Or any other of the eight similar legal situations in the world. Kinda makes you go, hmmmmm.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

This is a sticky two-part question.

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state under International Law is a statement of its intent by Israel. Recognition constitutes a unilateral decision by Israel of it's intent to conduct diplomatic exchanges on the basis that a body of leaders represent the constituents of a particular territory.

• It is entirely at the discretion of Israel to decide to recognize Palestine as a state.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable once given. Israel would be stipulating that the State pf Palestine is equal, enjoy the same rights as other States, and have equal capacity in their exercise.
​

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state may be "express" (explicitly stated) or "tacit" (implied deeds or indicated actions). The Oslo II Accord (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) may be considered such a deed as to be tacit approval.

Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?

(COMMENT)

The citizenry of the State of Palestine must formulate a government that is effective and independent both externally and internally; as an expression of state sovereignty.

If Palestine is recognized before all the preconditions for recognition are met (premature recognition), this could be considered contrary to International Law and Legally Ineffective. If Israel were to prematurely recognizes Palestine [as in the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt)] as in Paragraph 1, A/RES/67/19] could be interpreted as being in breach of the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of a state [Article2(4) 2 of the Charter of the United Nations]. See The recognition of states and governments under international law

A distinction is also drawn between de jure and de facto recognition.

• de jure Recognition: If a state is accorded de jure recognition, that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled.

• de facto Recognition: this type of recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. Provisional de facto recognition for political reasons can of course be converted to de jure recognition once all the required legal preconditions have been fulfilled.
​

(ANSWER)

In my opinion (for what it is worth) Israel has, without a formal statement, acted in a manner with the Palestinian Authority that suggests it has granted tacit provisional recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tehon, et al,

This is a sticky two-part question.

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state under International Law is a statement of its intent by Israel. Recognition constitutes a unilateral decision by Israel of it's intent to conduct diplomatic exchanges on the basis that a body of leaders represent the constituents of a particular territory.

• It is entirely at the discretion of Israel to decide to recognize Palestine as a state.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable once given. Israel would be stipulating that the State pf Palestine is equal, enjoy the same rights as other States, and have equal capacity in their exercise.
​

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state may be "express" (explicitly stated) or "tacit" (implied deeds or indicated actions). The Oslo II Accord (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) may be considered such a deed as to be tacit approval.

Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?

(COMMENT)

The citizenry of the State of Palestine must formulate a government that is effective and independent both externally and internally; as an expression of state sovereignty.

If Palestine is recognized before all the preconditions for recognition are met (premature recognition), this could be considered contrary to International Law and Legally Ineffective. If Israel were to prematurely recognizes Palestine [as in the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt)] as in Paragraph 1, A/RES/67/19] could be interpreted as being in breach of the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of a state [Article2(4) 2 of the Charter of the United Nations]. See The recognition of states and governments under international law

A distinction is also drawn between de jure and de facto recognition.

• de jure Recognition: If a state is accorded de jure recognition, that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled.

• de facto Recognition: this type of recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. Provisional de facto recognition for political reasons can of course be converted to de jure recognition once all the required legal preconditions have been fulfilled.
​

(ANSWER)

In my opinion (for what it is worth) Israel has, without a formal statement, acted in a manner with the Palestinian Authority that suggests it has granted tacit provisional recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

 

[Challenger]

He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states.

The Mandate system was merely a fig leaf for Britain and France to use so they could acquire and colonise the territory of the Ottoman Empire after they publicly declared they were not fighting the war (WW1) in order to expand their respective empires.