What confers the rights to a national sovereignty?

[RoccoR]

Votto, et al,

Interesting question.

Does a chosen religion negate sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Religion and Sovereignty are mutually exclusive. By definition, the sovereign power determines the relationship between the government and the religion (if any). But a religion does not determine sovereignty.

The Jews received their land from the UN, and then fought for it. They also can trace their ancient roots to the land.

(COMMENT)

The ancestral connection between a people and the land, while playing a part in the logic used by the Allied Powers in 1920, is not a necessary of sufficient condition for the assignment of territorial sovereignty.

Considering the historic religious persecution throughout the world in history and present, if I were a Jew I would fight for it to the death.

(COMMENT)

This is a concept that is closely related to something that we contemporarily call "nation building." The Allied Powers used the phrase: "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The entire Arab-Israeli Conflict is about the continuous struggle surrounding the "establishment of the Jewish national home;" with the Arab-Palestinians fighting to oppose, and the Jewish fighting to succeed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Already explained.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Are you saying that the answer, which does give very identifiable specifics, is to difficult for you to understand?

If it were simple answers, then everyone would have them.

You're still batting zero.

Why don't you just post something specific instead of blowing a lot of smoke?

(COMMENT)

If you know the answer, in a simpler form, just say so.

But, in most cases, the pro-Palestinian movements, attempt to lay claim to something that was not theirs to begin with, and attempts to blame everyone (but themselves) for their failure to achieve sovereignty.

Palestinians use a childlike scenario that goes: "calling dibs."

Calling "dibs" is the American English term, also known as "bags" or "bagsy" in England and Ireland, for an informal convention where one declares a first claim to something to which no one else has a clearly recognized right. Many kids use dibs to claim something.​

The world really doesn't work that way. Like most things worth having, some effort must be put into it.

Most Respectfully,
R

You throw out a lot of stuff but nothing fits.

Specifically how did Israel acquire the land it sits on?

(ANSWER)

As stated in Posting #9:

In this case, the State of Palestine is a State by Declaration; using the The Declarative Theory. It is not a state under the Constitutive Theory, because the claim to the territory is greater than its span of exclusive control.

On the other hand, the State of Israel is a state under both theories. It is a state under the Declarative theory, because of it formal announcement; and it is a state under the Constitutive Theory because its span of exclusive control is greater than the claim. Further, Israel has the formal recognition, required.

(SALIENT POINTS of INTEREST)

Here is the primary difference between the two Theories in the practical sense:

∆ Israel has exclusive control of territory, but no permanent boundary that completely encompasses the territory.
∆ Israel has two Internationally recognized Peace Treaties which outline lines the internationally recognized boundaries.
∆ The two Peace Treaties encapsulate (without prejudice) the territories Palestine claims.
∆ Under the Declarative Theory, pursuant to Article 3 - Montevideo Convention, and under common law (Articles 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter) Israel had the right to defend its integrity and independence, independent of recognition by the Arab League.
∆ Israel has successfully defended its territory for which it claimed exclusive control.

∆ Palestine has no exclusive control and no permanent boundary.
∆ Palestine only has exclusive control over Area "A" and the Gaza Strip (arguably).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Already explained.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Are you saying that the answer, which does give very identifiable specifics, is to difficult for you to understand?

If it were simple answers, then everyone would have them.

You're still batting zero.

Why don't you just post something specific instead of blowing a lot of smoke?

(COMMENT)

If you know the answer, in a simpler form, just say so.

But, in most cases, the pro-Palestinian movements, attempt to lay claim to something that was not theirs to begin with, and attempts to blame everyone (but themselves) for their failure to achieve sovereignty.

Palestinians use a childlike scenario that goes: "calling dibs."

Calling "dibs" is the American English term, also known as "bags" or "bagsy" in England and Ireland, for an informal convention where one declares a first claim to something to which no one else has a clearly recognized right. Many kids use dibs to claim something.​

The world really doesn't work that way. Like most things worth having, some effort must be put into it.

Most Respectfully,
R

You throw out a lot of stuff but nothing fits.

Specifically how did Israel acquire the land it sits on?

(ANSWER)

As stated in Posting #9:

In this case, the State of Palestine is a State by Declaration; using the The Declarative Theory. It is not a state under the Constitutive Theory, because the claim to the territory is greater than its span of exclusive control.

On the other hand, the State of Israel is a state under both theories. It is a state under the Declarative theory, because of it formal announcement; and it is a state under the Constitutive Theory because its span of exclusive control is greater than the claim. Further, Israel has the formal recognition, required.

(SALIENT POINTS of INTEREST)

Here is the primary difference between the two Theories in the practical sense:

∆ Israel has exclusive control of territory, but no permanent boundary that completely encompasses the territory.
∆ Israel has two Internationally recognized Peace Treaties which outline lines the internationally recognized boundaries.
∆ The two Peace Treaties encapsulate (without prejudice) the territories Palestine claims.
∆ Under the Declarative Theory, pursuant to Article 3 - Montevideo Convention, and under common law (Articles 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter) Israel had the right to defend its integrity and independence, independent of recognition by the Arab League.
∆ Israel has successfully defended its territory for which it claimed exclusive control.

∆ Palestine has no exclusive control and no permanent boundary.
∆ Palestine only has exclusive control over Area "A" and the Gaza Strip (arguably).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

You are dancing around the question again.

 

[montelatici]

So, it seems that Israel needs to enfranchise the inhabitants of the territory under its exclusive control or continue its Apartheid policy. Thanks for making it clear, Rocco.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

You guys are something else...

You are dancing around the question again.

(COMMENT)

It is very much like Professor Eve Spangler: "Everyone knows that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is important itself, and is also fueling tensions throughout the Middle East. Yet most people shy away from this conflict, claiming it is "just too complicated" to understand."

Certainly, you don't grasp the nuances to "sovereignty" and "self-determination."

There is no dancing here, except maybe for you and you concept avoidance posture.

So, it seems that Israel needs to enfranchise the inhabitants of the territory under its exclusive control or continue its Apartheid policy. Thanks for making it clear, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

You and your affinity for the association to "Apartheid."

ARTICLE 7 - Crimes Against Humanity --- Para 1j and 2h:

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

ELEMENTS of the OFFENSE:

1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts. (It is understood that “character” refers to the nature and gravity of the act.)
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Here again, you demonstrate that you are unable to understand what "Apartheid" is. The exclusive control of sovereign territory, and the application of borders controls and security countermeasures against illegal immigrants, insurgents, jihadist and terrorists that have pledged violence against Israel, does not constitute "Apartheid."

There is no "institutionalized Israeli regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group of Israel over any other racial group or groups within West Bank or Gaza Strip.

There is no widespread or systematic attack directed against the Palestinian civilian population that have acted within the constraints of law and order. [Article 43 The Hague Regulations IV (1907)]

All sovereign nations have the right to:

• regulate immigration (both legal and illegal)
• prevent threats from exiting or entering
• control the movement of citizens
• execute the customs functions as to
  • collect excise tax
  • prevent smuggling of drugs, weapons, endangered species and other illegal or hazardous material
  • control the spread of human or animal diseases (see also quarantine)[1]

Collectively these are called "Border Controls." This has nothing to do with "Apartheid."

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

You guys are something else...

You are dancing around the question again.

(COMMENT)

It is very much like Professor Eve Spangler: "Everyone knows that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is important itself, and is also fueling tensions throughout the Middle East. Yet most people shy away from this conflict, claiming it is "just too complicated" to understand."

Certainly, you don't grasp the nuances to "sovereignty" and "self-determination."

There is no dancing here, except maybe for you and you concept avoidance posture.

So, it seems that Israel needs to enfranchise the inhabitants of the territory under its exclusive control or continue its Apartheid policy. Thanks for making it clear, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

You and your affinity for the association to "Apartheid."

ARTICLE 7 - Crimes Against Humanity --- Para 1j and 2h:

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

ELEMENTS of the OFFENSE:

1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts. (It is understood that “character” refers to the nature and gravity of the act.)
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Here again, you demonstrate that you are unable to understand what "Apartheid" is. The exclusive control of sovereign territory, and the application of borders controls and security countermeasures against illegal immigrants, insurgents, jihadist and terrorists that have pledged violence against Israel, does not constitute "Apartheid."

There is no "institutionalized Israeli regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group of Israel over any other racial group or groups within West Bank or Gaza Strip.

There is no widespread or systematic attack directed against the Palestinian civilian population that have acted within the constraints of law and order. [Article 43 The Hague Regulations IV (1907)]

All sovereign nations have the right to:

• regulate immigration (both legal and illegal)
• prevent threats from exiting or entering
• control the movement of citizens
• execute the customs functions as to
  • collect excise tax
  • prevent smuggling of drugs, weapons, endangered species and other illegal or hazardous material
  • control the spread of human or animal diseases (see also quarantine)[1]

Collectively these are called "Border Controls." This has nothing to do with "Apartheid."

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still ducking the question.

 

[montelatici]

"There is no widespread or systematic attack directed against the Palestinian civilian population"

Among the many UNSC Resolutions. Not to mention UNGA resolutions:


United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSC) 1860 Jan 8, 2009

Expresses "grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm", expresses "grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza", "calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza", "Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment", and "Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism".



UNSC 1544 May 19, 2004

Reaffirms resolutions 242, 338, 446, 1322, 1397, 1402, 1405, 1435, and 1515, reiterates "the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", calls "on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law", expresses "grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967", condemns "the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area", expresses grave concern "by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp", reaffirms "its support for the Road Map, endorsed in resolution 1515", "Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law", and "Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map".

UNSC 1435 Sep 24, 2002

Expresses grave concern "at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ramallah that took place" on September 19, 2002, demands "its immediate end", expresses alarm "at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and goods, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people", reiterates "the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", "Demands that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure", and "Demands also the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to the positions held prior to September 2000".