Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"

[FDR_Reagan]

No, that's a lie, Dr. Herzl didn't say that.

But he did envision other nations free
from the yoke of Arab imperialism.

Nice.

 

[Pete7469]

It appears the Palestinians leave no solution possible. Even if Israel totally eliminates Hamas as a terrorist group against any peace possiblity the Palestinians will just form another one. Regretfully "from the river to the sea" keeps this conflict eternal.

Gaza needs to be rendered uninhabitable. The people need to be gives space elsewhere, by force if need be, in the Sinai far enough away that tunneling back is not feasible. They had their chance to coexist. They rejected it. Now they suffer the consequences.

 

[FDR_Reagan]

“IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza,” Times of Israel, November 29, 2023:



Fears were raised Wednesday [Nov. 29] for the youngest hostage held in the Gaza Strip after Hamas claimed that 10-month-old Kfir Bibas had been killed alongside his brother and mother.
Israel’s military said it was assessing the claim, while relatives said they were “waiting for the news to be confirmed or hopefully refuted soon” about the family members, who have become leading faces of the hostage crisis.
During the Hamas massacre of October 7, the Bibas family, including 10-month-old Kfir Bibas, his 4-year-old brother Ariel Bibas, and their mother Shiri Bibas — were kidnapped alive into Gaza,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement.
“The barbarism and cruelty of Hamas is on full display to the world. IDF representatives spoke with the Bibas family following the recent reports and are with them at this difficult time. The IDF is assessing the accuracy of the information,” it added.
It follows a claim by the military wing of Hamas, which said earlier in the day that the three hostages had been killed in Gaza as the result of Israeli bombing.
NBC News could not verify the claim. Israel has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields.
“Our family is updated on the latest Hamas publication. We are waiting for the news to be confirmed or hopefully refuted soon by military officials,” said the Bibas family in a statement released by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum.
It added: “We thank the people of Israel for the warm embrace but ask to maintain our privacy at this complex time.” Footage of kibbutz Nir Oz near the Gaza border as she clutched her two young children has become one of the lasting images of the terror attack, and the subsequent plight of the hostages inside Gaza.
At 10-months old, Kfir is believed to be the youngest captive.
Shiri Bibas’ husband, Yarden, was kidnapped alongside her and their children, but there was no information immediately available about his well-being….

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Coyote, et al,

I think you are both knowledgeable but I’d like a second verification since we are arguing very separate views here and without question, it has a complex and convoluted history.

RoccoR … is the West Bank occupied territory?

(REPLY)

This is both a legal question and a political question. Those who are pro-Arab Palestinians and those who are anti-Israel, take the approach that the territory was Arab Palestinian Territory and that Israel is the hostile army that maintains control.

The West Bank, under the Treaty between Jordan and Israel (1994), stipulates:

Article 3 • International Boundary​

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international​

boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories​

that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​

During the period 1950 → 1967, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory. The Pro-Arab Palestinians and those that are anti-Israel, take the position that the UN Membership largely opposed the Jordanian Annexation of April 1950. However, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States speaks to the four criteria [a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other state] and additionally states:

"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."​

(DILEMMA)

IF one decides that the Territory is Occupied, THEN you have to ask the question, who did the Israelis occupy? The Israelis originally occupied the West Bank when it was a Sovereign Jordanian Territory. In July 1988, the Jordanians abandoned their claim, cutting all ties, with the West Bank. That left "Israel" as the governing body in place. The 1994 Treaty reflects that notion.

Politically speaking, the majority of the world thinks that Israel is the "Hostile Army" of which Article 42 (supra) speaks. But in taking such a position, most of the world is ignoring or cherry-picking the events along the timeline that brought us here.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

RE: Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Coyote, et al,

View attachment 867308


(REPLY)

This is both a legal question and a political question. Those who are pro-Arab Palestinians and those who are anti-Israel, take the approach that the territory was Arab Palestinian Territory and that Israel is the hostile army that maintains control.

The West Bank, under the Treaty between Jordan and Israel (1994), stipulates:

Article 3 • International Boundary​

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international​

boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories​

that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​

During the period 1950 → 1967, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory. The Pro-Arab Palestinians and those that are anti-Israel, take the position that the UN Membership largely opposed the Jordanian Annexation of April 1950. However, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States speaks to the four criteria [a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other state] and additionally states:

"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."​

(DILEMMA)

IF one decides that the Territory is Occupied, THEN you have to ask the question, who did the Israelis occupy? The Israelis originally occupied the West Bank when it was a Sovereign Jordanian Territory. In July 1988, the Jordanians abandoned their claim, cutting all ties, with the West Bank. That left "Israel" as the governing body in place. The 1994 Treaty reflects that notion.

Politically speaking, the majority of the world thinks that Israel is the "Hostile Army" of which Article 42 (supra) speaks. But in taking such a position, most of the world is ignoring or cherry-picking the events along the timeline that brought us here.

Most Respectfully,
R

So…am I correct in thinking both answers are correct, depending on your point of view?

And if it isn’t occupied, what exactly is it? And why is a substantial portion of it’s native population subject to Israel”s military military justice system?

 

[FDR_Reagan]

So…am I correct in thinking both answers are correct, depending on your point of view?

And if it isn’t occupied, what exactly is it? And why is a substantial portion of it’s native population subject to Israel”s military military justice system?

With all due respect, but who is native there? Majotity of both groups are grandchildren (or further) of immigrants.

When and How the Arabs and Muslims Immigrated to the Land of Israel—Period of British Rule, 1918–1948

The Palestinian National Movement and its Palestine Authority aim to rewrite the history of the Land of Israel. They have developed several agendas about the history of the country. One agenda claims that they are the ancient population of the country they call Falstin (Palestine). The other...

books.google.com

As to being subject to, not saying that all is perfect, but at the core, it is always about security - ever since 1929 massacre. When the day comes and they don't feel threatened, all will change.

Many settlers are also subject to crackdowns by Israeli forces. Though most of them are not violent.

 

[Coyote]

Wuth all due respect. Who is native? Both are grandchildren (or further) of immigrants.

Not necessarily.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"
SUBTOPIC: POVs and Military Justice System
※→ Coyote, FDR Reagan, et al,

This is one of those questions where I have to "waffle." I am a layman, and I have to follow the prevailing opinion. I think that the European Institute for International Law and International Relations (EIIR) has outlined the prevailing opinion in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). But this opinion (that the territory is occupied and that the Customary and Internationa Humanitarian Law (IHL) applies has consequences. The IHL includes (but is not limited to) the Geneva Conventions (1 thru 4) (with emphasis on the Fourth Geneva Convention) and the Hague Regulation (particularly the 1907 Convention).

So…am I correct in thinking both answers are correct, depending on your point of view?

(COMMENT)

Reference:
Article 68 - Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-68?activeTab=undefined
Once the standing legal community and the UN Security Council stipulate that the Territory is Occupied then certain arguments become of little or no practical relevance.

And if it isn’t occupied, what exactly is it? And why is a substantial portion of it’s native population subject to Israel”s military military justice system?

(COMMENT)

As you can see in Article 66 (GCIV) outlines the applicable judicial system (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.). Articles 64 thru 68 (in particular) have some far-reaching effects and impacts.

Article 64 - Penal legislation. I. General observations​

The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.​

​

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

Article 66 - Penal legislation. III. Competent courts​

In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64 , the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country.​

This combination of the aforementioned two Articles (64, 66 and 68). A close examination of Article 68, cancels any argument for a legitimate armed struggle between the two parties (Israeli and Palestinian). Essentially, it is against IHL for the HoAP to commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (this is my simplification).

So, the POV that the territories meet the criteria of Article 43 of the Hague Regulation is (IMHO as a layman) that the path that takes you to the answer that the territory is "occupied" by the Israelis is "more" correct than any alternative solution. And under international law (Customary and IHL) that puts most of the legal issues on the side of the Israelis (no matter what the HoAP, pro-Palestinians and anti-Israelis might say to the contrary). Additionally, the Palestinians, in the OSLO Accords → (Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".

I have listened to a great many distinguished members of the various legal organizations, and very prominent HoAP, pro-Palestinians, and anti-Israelis institutions and agencies. And the first thing you will notice is that they hardly ever mention these important protocols which I have submitted for your consideration. Why (you might ask)? Well most of them have their own agenda. Most of the arguments are presented without authoritative material. They bombard the audience with their superior intellect and truckloads of nonbinding documents which sound impressive but are about as illuminating as a single candle-power lamp.

Just my thoughts,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

RE: Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"
SUBTOPIC: POVs and Military Justice System
※→ Coyote, FDR Reagan, et al,

This is one of those questions where I have to "waffle." I am a layman, and I have to follow the prevailing opinion. I think that the European Institute for International Law and International Relations (EIIR) has outlined the prevailing opinion in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). But this opinion (that the territory is occupied and that the Customary and Internationa Humanitarian Law (IHL) applies has consequences. The IHL includes (but is not limited to) the Geneva Conventions (1 thru 4) (with emphasis on the Fourth Geneva Convention) and the Hague Regulation (particularly the 1907 Convention).


(COMMENT)

Reference:
Article 68 - Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-68?activeTab=undefined
Once the standing legal community and the UN Security Council stipulate that the Territory is Occupied then certain arguments become of little or no practical relevance.

(COMMENT)

As you can see in Article 66 (GCIV) outlines the applicable judicial system (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.). Articles 64 thru 68 (in particular) have some far-reaching effects and impacts.

Article 64 - Penal legislation. I. General observations​

The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.​

​

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

Article 66 - Penal legislation. III. Competent courts​

In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64 , the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country.​

This combination of the aforementioned two Articles (64, 66 and 68). A close examination of Article 68, cancels any argument for a legitimate armed struggle between the two parties (Israeli and Palestinian). Essentially, it is against IHL for the HoAP to commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (this is my simplification).

So, the POV that the territories meet the criteria of Article 43 of the Hague Regulation is (IMHO as a layman) that the path that takes you to the answer that the territory is "occupied" by the Israelis is "more" correct than any alternative solution. And under international law (Customary and IHL) that puts most of the legal issues on the side of the Israelis (no matter what the HoAP, pro-Palestinians and anti-Israelis might say to the contrary). Additionally, the Palestinians, in the OSLO Accords → (Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".

I have listened to a great many distinguished members of the various legal organizations, and very prominent HoAP, pro-Palestinians, and anti-Israelis institutions and agencies. And the first thing you will notice is that they hardly ever mention these important protocols which I have submitted for your consideration. Why (you might ask)? Well most of them have their own agenda. Most of the arguments are presented without authoritative material. They bombard the audience with their superior intellect and truckloads of nonbinding documents which sound impressive but are about as illuminating as a single candle-power lamp.

Just my thoughts,

Most Respectfully,
R

So….readers digest version: it’s complicated! My take on it though seems to be it is an occupied territory governed as an occupied territory although the population within it does not fall under the same laws or justice system.

 

[Shusha]

So, the POV that the territories meet the criteria of Article 43 of the Hague Regulation is (IMHO as a layman) that the path that takes you to the answer that the territory is "occupied" by the Israelis is "more" correct than any alternative solution.

Regulations: Art. 43​

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.


I believe this is the article you are referring to. This article requires a legitimate power and an occupying power. If Israel is the occupying power, who is the legitimate power. By what means did that power come into its legitimacy?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Then they hypocritically cry "civilians" and "genocide[sic]"
SUBTOPIC: Legitimate Power and Control
※→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,

Article 43 was written in a time when the current type of conflict (involving the Jihadists, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) was not envisioned. International law is becoming more and more difficult to revise over time.

REF: Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power

I believe this is the article you are referring to. This article requires a legitimate power and an occupying power. If Israel is the occupying power, who is the legitimate power. By what means did that power come into its legitimacy?

(COMMENT)

Your question is very logical. The problem is → that "legitimacy" is in the eye of the beholder.

We are probably looking at a case that closely resembles "Terra Nullius" (territorium nullius and susceptible to Occupation takeover) (Nobody's Land); an acquisition variant of the original concept.

When the Jordanians relinquished their sovereignty over their 1950 Annexation of the territory, the Israelis came into control of a territory that no longer had a parent (an orphan territory) quite unexpectedly. The Jordanians did not codify the shift of control until 1994 when the current border was formally established.

Modes of Acquisition of State Territory​

​

􀁹 The five modes of acquiring territory have traditionally been distinguished into cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and prescription. Before looking into these modes of acquisition which have been derived from Roman law rules on property it is necessary to understand that they are no longer appropriate or applicable.​

[SOURCE: SURBHI WADHWA, Assistant Professor (Law), Jiwaji University, Gwalior]​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Lakhota]

DEFENSE SEC: ISRAEL RISKS 'STRATEGIC DEFEAT' IF CIVILIANS KEEP DYING​

 

[FDR_Reagan]

DEFENSE SEC: ISRAEL RISKS 'STRATEGIC DEFEAT' IF CIVILIANS KEEP DYING​

Which is why Jihadi regime keeps using its people, for this purpose.

 

[Pastelli]

14.3 million Palestinians worldwide who I suspect feel Israel is after them

Those not involve in terror?

 

[FDR_Reagan]

So…am I correct in thinking both answers are correct, depending on your point of view?

And if it isn’t occupied, what exactly is it? And why is a substantial portion of it’s native population subject to Israel”s military military justice system?

• Why did they refuse partition in 1947 and attacked?
• Why did Arafat refuse E. Barak's huge concession in 2000?
• What payback did Israel get when giving away Gush Katif (hint, enter Hamas)?
• Does Israel not have a logical / legitimate worry of annihilation since its reestablished state?

 

[FDR_Reagan]

Palestinians are not using their children as human shields unless you are referring to Hamas.

Who governs Gaza?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Palestinians are not using their children as human shields unless you are referring to Hamas.

They are clearly allowing Hamas to use their children as human shields without complaint, and they are still and 75% of them are still cheering the Oct 7 attack that has brought all this devastation upon them and their children.

 

[Pastelli]

They are clearly allowing Hamas to use their children as human shields without complaint, and they are still and 75% of them are still cheering the Oct 7 attack that has brought all this devastation upon them and their children.

I saw large crowds in Gaza, cheering at abusing girls abductees on Oct 7. In public.

 

[Shusha]

It appears that at least some of the hostages were kept in the attics and homes of the people of Gaza, including an UNWRA teacher who is the father of ten children. This is using your own children as human shields. I can't think of anything else that would adequately describe it.

 

[Sayaras]

And just imagine....some folks--including our President--apparently want a "two state" solution. So these guys could do what practically all nations do... legitimately tax people, borrow money from the World Bank and others, field an army, train in the open, create a formal intel agency. On the surface, the whole "two state" solution is nuts if one of the states wants to destroy it's neighbor.

Terrorists should not be rewarded