A Few Facts About The Palestinians

[Billo_Really]

Yup cognitive dissonance again. We've been over this. 242 was adopted under article VI in which case its a suggestion not a binding legal demand. Its a suggestion because it was determined that Israel was NOT THE AGGRESSOR. Israel was simply defending itself and is allowed to maintain that defensive posture.

Also under what presence did Jordan actually own the disputed territories that makes you think they can't lose that land in war ? The simple truth is they never owned it in the first place and its last legal standing was as a protectorate for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland. ;--) which is exactly what Israel is doing with it now.

Best of luck with that.

All Security Council resolutions are binding.
Except for this one. You happen to be right on that point.

You are not right on why. No where does it state in any UN document, Israel was not the aggressor. No where.

Firing the first shot, is not a defensive posture.

I asked you before to show me one international law that says you can hang onto land seized in a defensive war. To date, you have not provided any.

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

At least we agree on one thing.............an occupation must end.

It can never be permanent.

 

[Billo_Really]

There it is.. The largest TRUTH...

Is Carl Williams.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

At least we agree on one thing.............an occupation must end.

It can never be permanent.

Oh we definitely agree on that. But it's obvious that the Palis need some partners and mentoring to make that happen. Know any interested responsible Arab countries that might want to help??

 

[Shusha]

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation.

Your definition of "occupation" is legally faulty. Else great portions of Canada, the US and Australia are legal occupations. An occupation, in law, means the control of another's sovereign territory.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh we definitely agree on that. But it's obvious that the Palis need some partners and mentoring to make that happen. Know any interested responsible Arab countries that might want to help??

The only thing that is obvious, is that Israel needs to honor international law.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your definition of "occupation" is legally faulty. Else great portions of Canada, the US and Australia are legal occupations. An occupation, in law, means the control of another's sovereign territory.

This is the legal definition of an "occupation".

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

Israel has no sovereign title to the West Bank.

 

[Shusha]

Your definition of "occupation" is legally faulty. Else great portions of Canada, the US and Australia are legal occupations. An occupation, in law, means the control of another's sovereign territory.

This is the legal definition of an "occupation".

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

Israel has no sovereign title to the West Bank.

Israel has a valid claim to sovereign title over the entire area of the Mandate of Palestine except for that area carved off as Jordan. In fact, NO ONE else has claim to sovereign title over that territory.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh we definitely agree on that. But it's obvious that the Palis need some partners and mentoring to make that happen. Know any interested responsible Arab countries that might want to help??

The only thing that is obvious, is that Israel needs to honor international law.

What organization of the Palestinians is subject to "international law"?

 

[Shusha]

Your definition of "occupation" is legally faulty. Else great portions of Canada, the US and Australia are legal occupations. An occupation, in law, means the control of another's sovereign territory.

This is the legal definition of an "occupation".

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

The definition of "occupation" is actually quite vague. According to Article 42 of the Hague Conventions it is:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Article 41 of the Manual of Wars on Land states:

territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there.


You also mention "unconsented to" effective control. Who's consent must be obtained?


Yes, I understand that you don't recognize Israel's claim to that territory. So, I will go along with that for the sake of argument. Instead, I will ask you what you think IHL says about territory which is under no one's sovereignty.

 

[Boston1]

Your definition of "occupation" is legally faulty. Else great portions of Canada, the US and Australia are legal occupations. An occupation, in law, means the control of another's sovereign territory.

This is the legal definition of an "occupation".

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

Israel has no sovereign title to the West Bank.

Actually it does.

The last legally binding instrument in the disputed territories is the British mandate, which specially states that the area is to be used for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Israel cannot be occupying land set aside for its own creation.

Also there is the issue of who's land they are occupying ? Jordan was by treaty not allowed east of the Jordan. So they were actually illegally occupying the area. However the Israeli's not only acquired the land through defensive action and not only were NOT ORDERED TO ABANDON IT by resolution 242. But are in fact not occupying anyone elses dirt by virtue of the simple fact that it wasn't legally anyone elses.

You can pretend all the international law you want, and of course you provide no citations supporting your claims, but the simple fact remains. Israel is not occupying anything. It is governing a disputed territory. Disputed only because the international community is stuck in a PR war.

 

[Boston1]

Your definition of "occupation" is legally faulty. Else great portions of Canada, the US and Australia are legal occupations. An occupation, in law, means the control of another's sovereign territory.

This is the legal definition of an "occupation".

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

The definition of "occupation" is actually quite vague. According to Article 42 of the Hague Conventions it is:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Article 41 of the Manual of Wars on Land states:

territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there.


You also mention "unconsented to" effective control. Who's consent must be obtained?


Yes, I understand that you don't recognize Israel's claim to that territory. So, I will go along with that for the sake of argument. Instead, I will ask you what you think IHL says about territory which is under no one's sovereignty.

Bingo, there are innumerable reasons why Israel is NOT OCCUPYING the disputed territories

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually it does.

No it doesn't. See the partition plan.

The last legally binding instrument in the disputed territories is the British mandate, which specially states that the area is to be used for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Israel cannot be occupying land set aside for its own creation.

The problem with that is the Mandate had a caveat Zionists were in breach of from the very beginning...

it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine​

...and by denying them the right of self determination, you are prejudicing their rights.

Also there is the issue of who's land they are occupying ?

The people who have been living there for the past 2000 years.

Jordan was by treaty not allowed east of the Jordan. So they were actually illegally occupying the area.

Jordan didn't seize this land in a war.

However the Israeli's not only acquired the land through defensive action

I keep asking you to show me the international law that say's this. Why can't you provide this evidence? Why do you keep repeating yourself, without backing up what you claim? Why can't you prove this is legal?

BTW, invading a sovereign nation is not a defensive action. And that's exactly what Israel did.

and not only were NOT ORDERED TO ABANDON IT by resolution 242.

I want you to read the following out loud 3 times.



What part of this don't you understand?

But are in fact not occupying anyone elses dirt by virtue of the simple fact that it wasn't legally anyone elses.

Again, it doesn't matter who's "dirt" it is; all that matters is that it is not Israel's "dirt".

You can pretend all the international law you want,

What international law was "pretended"?

And quite frankly, since you can't come up with any yourself, you're not even qualified to make a statement like that. WTF do you know about international law (aside from the fact you're unable to provide any)?

and of course you provide no citations supporting your claims,

Constantly repeating this, will not make it true.

but the simple fact remains. Israel is not occupying anything. It is governing a disputed territory. Disputed only because the international community is stuck in a PR war.

You're right and the whole world is wrong?

You're a lunatic!

 

[Billo_Really]

What organization of the Palestinians is subject to "international law"?

All of them. International laws are universal.

 

[Billo_Really]

The definition of "occupation" is actually quite vague. According to Article 42 of the Hague Conventions it is:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Article 41 of the Manual of Wars on Land states:

territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there.


You also mention "unconsented to" effective control. Who's consent must be obtained?


Yes, I understand that you don't recognize Israel's claim to that territory. So, I will go along with that for the sake of argument. Instead, I will ask you what you think IHL says about territory which is under no one's sovereignty.

It's the people who live there. You don't have to have sovereignty, to have rights. In fact, nations do not have rights, people do. It is not required for the indigenous residents of Palestine (or whatever name you want to give it) to be a state, to have rights.

The right to self determination cannot be lost and they can not give it away. It is inalienable.

 

[flacaltenn]

What organization of the Palestinians is subject to "international law"?

All of them. International laws are universal.

ALL of them? It's pretty much a null set..

 

[Boston1]

Actually it does.

No it doesn't. See the partition plan.

The last legally binding instrument in the disputed territories is the British mandate, which specially states that the area is to be used for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Israel cannot be occupying land set aside for its own creation.

The problem with that is the Mandate had a caveat Zionists were in breach of from the very beginning...

it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine​

...and by denying them the right of self determination, you are prejudicing their rights.

Also there is the issue of who's land they are occupying ?

The people who have been living there for the past 2000 years.

Jordan was by treaty not allowed east of the Jordan. So they were actually illegally occupying the area.

Jordan didn't seize this land in a war.

However the Israeli's not only acquired the land through defensive action

I keep asking you to show me the international law that say's this. Why can't you provide this evidence? Why do you keep repeating yourself, without backing up what you claim? Why can't you prove this is legal?

BTW, invading a sovereign nation is not a defensive action. And that's exactly what Israel did.

and not only were NOT ORDERED TO ABANDON IT by resolution 242.

I want you to read the following out loud 3 times.



What part of this don't you understand?

But are in fact not occupying anyone elses dirt by virtue of the simple fact that it wasn't legally anyone elses.

Again, it doesn't matter who's "dirt" it is; all that matters is that it is not Israel's "dirt".

You can pretend all the international law you want,

What international law was "pretended"?

And quite frankly, since you can't come up with any yourself, you're not even qualified to make a statement like that. WTF do you know about international law (aside from the fact you're unable to provide any)?

and of course you provide no citations supporting your claims,

Constantly repeating this, will not make it true.

but the simple fact remains. Israel is not occupying anything. It is governing a disputed territory. Disputed only because the international community is stuck in a PR war.

You're right and the whole world is wrong?

You're a lunatic!

Your funny

You also once again failed to provide a single reference or citation. Oh there is one unreferenced and very pretty picture which you highlighted but still no references ;--)

So lets go through that one at a time and see how you did

1)
Nowhere in the partition plan does it say the Judaic people are bared from purchasing land ;--) Nor does the partition plan supersede what is legal and what isn't illegal in a state of war, Which was entered into on May 15 1948 when Egypt Jordan Syria Iraq and Lebanon declared war against Israel.

see
4.4.1 Declared wars since 1945 <-------- Thats a reference in case you were not aware ;--)

The UN failed to segregate legitimate refugees from combatants and Israel has had to enact restrictions on this mixed combatant population in order to quell the violence. There is no violation of the mandate charter, which by the way at this time had expired anyway.

see
2.1 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine <-------- hey hey another reference

• 15 May – ( 1948 ) At midnight between 14 and 15 May, the British Mandate is officially terminated and the State of Israel comes into being.

The palestinian combatants and their descendants gave up their rights of self determination when they participated in war on Israel. No country is required to offer shelter or aid to a hostile force.

Partition plan kinda forgot to cover that one didn't it ;--)

2)
Wrong

see
Shusha post #190 this thread

Quote
The definition of "occupation" is actually quite vague. According to Article 42 of the Hague Conventions it is:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Article 41 of the Manual of Wars on Land states:

territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there.
End Quote

See also
Occupying power legal definition of Occupying power <------ test, whats this called

Quote
Military..occupation..occurs..when..a..belligerent..state..invades..the..territory..of..another..state..with..the..intention..of..holding..the..territory..at..least..temporarily....While..hostilities..continue..,the..occupying..state..is..prohibited..by..International..Law..from..annexing..the..territory..or..creating..another..state..out..of..it,...buttheoccupyingstatemayestablishsomeformofmilitaryadministrationovertheterritoryandthepopulation.UndertheMartial Lawimposedbythisregime,residentsarerequiredtoobeytheoccupyingauthoritiesandmaybepunishedfornotdoingso.Civiliansmayalsobecompelledtoperformavarietyofnonmilitarytasksfortheoccupyingauthorities,suchastherepairofroadsandbuildings,providedsuchworkdoesnotcontributedirectlytotheenemywareffort.

At no point have the Israeli's been the belligerent in a single one of the Arab wars, In every case its been the Arabs who initiated the hostilities.
Ergo while Israel may be militarily maintaining a security zone, it is not a belligerent occupier under the legal definition of occupation

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
End Quote

3) Jordan didn't seize the disputed territories in war ? really ?

See
Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free ...

Quote
Jordanian occupation of the West Bank refers to the occupation and annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan), during a period of nearly two decades (1948–1967) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion, conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank.
End Quote

4) Israel didn't invade a sovereign nation, palestine has never been a sovereign nation.

5) How many times do you need to be told, UNSCR 242 was adopted under chapter VI, in which case it is a nonbinding suggestion, NOT a binding legal instrument.

See #2 as well as
Chapter VI

Quote
Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.
End Quote

The remainder of your post is just one obsurdity after another and really doesn't warrant any more of my time

Cheers

 

[Shusha]

It's the people who live there. You don't have to have sovereignty, to have rights. In fact, nations do not have rights, people do. It is not required for the indigenous residents of Palestine (or whatever name you want to give it) to be a state, to have rights.

The right to self determination cannot be lost and they can not give it away. It is inalienable.

Who is denying anyone's right to self-determination? Certainly not me. I have championed the rights of BOTH peoples since day one on this forum, denying no one. In fact, virtually 100% of my time here has been spent countering people who are actively denying the rights of the Jewish people to that same self-determination, including you.

I AGREE wholeheartedly that the right to self-determination can not be lost and can not be given away. I AGREE wholeheartedly that it is an inalienable right for ALL people. INCLUDING the Jewish people.

But the discussion here revolves around whether or not borders and specific territory can be claimed unilaterally in a region with two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty via that inalienable right to self-determination. It is my claim that it can not. Where there are two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty (especially where one is realized and the other is not) -- the final borders can only be set by negotiation and treaty. Further, I am arguing that people of the "wrong" group CAN NOT be made to move (ethnically cleansed) after negotiation of territory and certainly not before. And I apply this criteria equally to both sides.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who is denying anyone's right to self-determination?

In 1948, Zionists stood up and declared Israel an independent nation, when they were only 30% of the population. Didn't the majority 70% of the population have a right to determine who should rule them?

Certainly not me. I have championed the rights of BOTH peoples since day one on this forum, denying no one. In fact, virtually 100% of my time here has been spent countering people who are actively denying the rights of the Jewish people to that same self-determination, including you.

I know you have. You're one of the good guys. It takes a lot of courage to be a moderate on this issue, considering "your side" has a history of executing them (Rabin).

I AGREE wholeheartedly that the right to self-determination can not be lost and can not be given away. I AGREE wholeheartedly that it is an inalienable right for ALL people. INCLUDING the Jewish people.

And I agree with that, including Jews.

But the discussion here revolves around whether or not borders and specific territory can be claimed unilaterally in a region with two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty via that inalienable right to self-determination.

No they cannot. You have to have been a resident of Palestine to claim the right of self determination for that area (ie, Palestinian-Arabs, Palestinian-Jews). Not European Jews.

It is my claim that it can not.

We agree.

Where there are two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty (especially where one is realized and the other is not) -- the final borders can only be set by negotiation and treaty.

I'm not against that.

Further, I am arguing that people of the "wrong" group CAN NOT be made to move (ethnically cleansed) after negotiation of territory and certainly not before. And I apply this criteria equally to both sides.

That's a little more complex issue to discuss.

 

[Indeependent]

Who is denying anyone's right to self-determination?

In 1948, Zionists stood up and declared Israel an independent nation, when they were only 30% of the population. Didn't the majority 70% of the population have a right to determine who should rule them?

Certainly not me. I have championed the rights of BOTH peoples since day one on this forum, denying no one. In fact, virtually 100% of my time here has been spent countering people who are actively denying the rights of the Jewish people to that same self-determination, including you.

I know you have. You're one of the good guys. It takes a lot of courage to be a moderate on this issue, considering "your side" has a history of executing them (Rabin).

I AGREE wholeheartedly that the right to self-determination can not be lost and can not be given away. I AGREE wholeheartedly that it is an inalienable right for ALL people. INCLUDING the Jewish people.

And I agree with that, including Jews.

But the discussion here revolves around whether or not borders and specific territory can be claimed unilaterally in a region with two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty via that inalienable right to self-determination.

No they cannot. You have to have been a resident of Palestine to claim the right of self determination for that area (ie, Palestinian-Arabs, Palestinian-Jews). Not European Jews.

It is my claim that it can not.

We agree.

Where there are two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty (especially where one is realized and the other is not) -- the final borders can only be set by negotiation and treaty.

I'm not against that.

Further, I am arguing that people of the "wrong" group CAN NOT be made to move (ethnically cleansed) after negotiation of territory and certainly not before. And I apply this criteria equally to both sides.

That's a little more complex issue to discuss.

That was the UN.