Arab-Israeli conflict Q&A

[P F Tinmore]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

All changed once Israel gave up the occupation of gaza in August 2005. Now that it is no longer under occupation Israel can respond with violence against violence. So if hamas wants to attack a sovereign nation they must be prepared to accept return of fire.

Israeli lie. Gaza is still occupied. Israel is inside Gaza every day.

 

[Phoenall]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

But, you'll have to do better than a left leaning website. Seriously.

Israel ceded governmental control of the Gaza strip back to Palestine in 1993. It then withdrew all of its troops and told all Israeli settlers to evacuate the area in 2005. Any further attacks from that area are from Palestine now. Not much jurisdictional control there now is it? Whatever happens in Gaza happens to Palestine. Whatever happens to Israel is a result of Palestinian action. Palestine is responsible for the blood on its hands, not Israel. Hello? Revisionist history alert!

Moreover, if Russia or China started lobbing ICBMs at us, we wouldn't tolerate that much either, now would we? Indeed, if we launched a rocket at them first, then they would respond likewise. Now, take Israel for example. They are like the Hulk, you keep pelting him with puny rockets and he gets greener and madder.

No country will tolerate an act of aggression, no matter how small that act might seem to you.

She continues:

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

Palestine is a not a member of the UN, at least from my understanding, international laws or treaties enforced by the UN are not legally binding on a non member state. Basically it gives Palestine the ability to do pretty much whatever it wants. The UN Charter only applies to actions taken by one member state on another, which Palestine is not. Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.

As for number two in your article:

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

It's odd she mentions Article 47 of the Hague Regulations, to date, nothing has been "pillaged" from Gaza. Articles 48 and 49 speak of the 'occupying force' being able to lay and collect taxes from the occupied. That ended when Israel handed Gaza over to Palestine. Gaza is surrounded on all sides by a vastly superior military force, therefore it is natural to assume that this superior military force will assert its dominance through air and sea. Not because they want to, but because they can. Moreover, Israel has the right to control who enters and leaves, since there are only two ways to enter Israel, via land or sea.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations state that an occupation occurs when "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Israel removed its troops in 2005. Therefore there is no real occupation of the Gaza Strip. And, the second clause of Article 42 reads in part, "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Once again, Israel removed all governmental influence over Gaza in 1993.

She goes on to state:

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance.

That is also false, since Palestine held parliamentary elections in 2006, whereby Hamas won control over the Gaza Strip. The fact that they are able to hold elections at all shows they have the ability to govern themselves.

Lastly, to sum up your argument Mr. Tinmore, the Al-Qassam Brigades (of Hamas) were heard telling IDF soldiers:

"From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life."



It is clear to me that the Palestinian Government places no value on the lives of its citizens. To think that in any way Israel wantonly slaughters innocent civilians is foolish, whilst you ignore the attitudes Palestine takes towards the sanctity of life.

I love how both you and this lady spin this out to make Israel look like it is a ruthless oppressive force out to slaughter and pillage like a bunch of barbarians. You must be joking.

Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.​

Nobody has ever proven that to be true.

So the rockets are figments of peoples imaginations, and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by hamas never happened. Both are violations of International law and the Geneva conventions, PROOF ENOUGH TINMAN

 

[P F Tinmore]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

And Palestine falls down on defined territory as it has never agreed mutual borders with any of its neighbours. Isreal has more defined borders than the state of Palestine that has only existed since 1988

Israeli lie. Palestine has had international borders since 1924. They were defined by post war treaties.

 

[Phoenall]

The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

As of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Israel is a defined territory with a government which has a capacity to enter into relations with other states. It is known that 160 of the 192 nations on Earth recognize Israel's sovereignty.

Knock, knock! Is anybody in there?

The proposed borders of resolution 181 have never been recognized by Israel or anybody else. That is a false statement.

The Israelis have reached agreement on the borders between Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon over the years. These are binding on all parties and follow the criteria laid down in the UN charter. Now what agreements have the Palestinians been signatories to that define their borders, and who are they with ?

Don't try and pass of LoN treaties as defining their borders as they have been shown to do no such thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

But, you'll have to do better than a left leaning website. Seriously.

Israel ceded governmental control of the Gaza strip back to Palestine in 1993. It then withdrew all of its troops and told all Israeli settlers to evacuate the area in 2005. Any further attacks from that area are from Palestine now. Not much jurisdictional control there now is it? Whatever happens in Gaza happens to Palestine. Whatever happens to Israel is a result of Palestinian action. Palestine is responsible for the blood on its hands, not Israel. Hello? Revisionist history alert!

Moreover, if Russia or China started lobbing ICBMs at us, we wouldn't tolerate that much either, now would we? Indeed, if we launched a rocket at them first, then they would respond likewise. Now, take Israel for example. They are like the Hulk, you keep pelting him with puny rockets and he gets greener and madder.

No country will tolerate an act of aggression, no matter how small that act might seem to you.

She continues:

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

Palestine is a not a member of the UN, at least from my understanding, international laws or treaties enforced by the UN are not legally binding on a non member state. Basically it gives Palestine the ability to do pretty much whatever it wants. The UN Charter only applies to actions taken by one member state on another, which Palestine is not. Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.

As for number two in your article:

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

It's odd she mentions Article 47 of the Hague Regulations, to date, nothing has been "pillaged" from Gaza. Articles 48 and 49 speak of the 'occupying force' being able to lay and collect taxes from the occupied. That ended when Israel handed Gaza over to Palestine. Gaza is surrounded on all sides by a vastly superior military force, therefore it is natural to assume that this superior military force will assert its dominance through air and sea. Not because they want to, but because they can. Moreover, Israel has the right to control who enters and leaves, since there are only two ways to enter Israel, via land or sea.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations state that an occupation occurs when "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Israel removed its troops in 2005. Therefore there is no real occupation of the Gaza Strip. And, the second clause of Article 42 reads in part, "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Once again, Israel removed all governmental influence over Gaza in 1993.

She goes on to state:

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance.

That is also false, since Palestine held parliamentary elections in 2006, whereby Hamas won control over the Gaza Strip. The fact that they are able to hold elections at all shows they have the ability to govern themselves.

Lastly, to sum up your argument Mr. Tinmore, the Al-Qassam Brigades (of Hamas) were heard telling IDF soldiers:

"From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life."



It is clear to me that the Palestinian Government places no value on the lives of its citizens. To think that in any way Israel wantonly slaughters innocent civilians is foolish, whilst you ignore the attitudes Palestine takes towards the sanctity of life.

I love how both you and this lady spin this out to make Israel look like it is a ruthless oppressive force out to slaughter and pillage like a bunch of barbarians. You must be joking.

Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.​

Nobody has ever proven that to be true.

So the rockets are figments of peoples imaginations, and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by hamas never happened. Both are violations of International law and the Geneva conventions, PROOF ENOUGH TINMAN

Still no proof, huh.

 

[Phoenall]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

All changed once Israel gave up the occupation of gaza in August 2005. Now that it is no longer under occupation Israel can respond with violence against violence. So if hamas wants to attack a sovereign nation they must be prepared to accept return of fire.

Israeli lie. Gaza is still occupied. Israel is inside Gaza every day.

According to hamas gaza is not occupied, who should I believe the elected rulers or you ?

 

[Phoenall]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

And Palestine falls down on defined territory as it has never agreed mutual borders with any of its neighbours. Isreal has more defined borders than the state of Palestine that has only existed since 1988

Israeli lie. Palestine has had international borders since 1924. They were defined by post war treaties.

The produce the treaties signed by a Palestinian representative that defines the borders of the state of Palestine, not the mandate of Palestine which is a completely different thing

 

[P F Tinmore]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

All changed once Israel gave up the occupation of gaza in August 2005. Now that it is no longer under occupation Israel can respond with violence against violence. So if hamas wants to attack a sovereign nation they must be prepared to accept return of fire.

Israeli lie. Gaza is still occupied. Israel is inside Gaza every day.

According to hamas gaza is not occupied, who should I believe the elected rulers or you ?

Ask Hamas if they can issue ID cards or passports. Ask them who controls imports and exports.

 

[Phoenall]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

But, you'll have to do better than a left leaning website. Seriously.

Israel ceded governmental control of the Gaza strip back to Palestine in 1993. It then withdrew all of its troops and told all Israeli settlers to evacuate the area in 2005. Any further attacks from that area are from Palestine now. Not much jurisdictional control there now is it? Whatever happens in Gaza happens to Palestine. Whatever happens to Israel is a result of Palestinian action. Palestine is responsible for the blood on its hands, not Israel. Hello? Revisionist history alert!

Moreover, if Russia or China started lobbing ICBMs at us, we wouldn't tolerate that much either, now would we? Indeed, if we launched a rocket at them first, then they would respond likewise. Now, take Israel for example. They are like the Hulk, you keep pelting him with puny rockets and he gets greener and madder.

No country will tolerate an act of aggression, no matter how small that act might seem to you.

She continues:

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

Palestine is a not a member of the UN, at least from my understanding, international laws or treaties enforced by the UN are not legally binding on a non member state. Basically it gives Palestine the ability to do pretty much whatever it wants. The UN Charter only applies to actions taken by one member state on another, which Palestine is not. Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.

As for number two in your article:

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

It's odd she mentions Article 47 of the Hague Regulations, to date, nothing has been "pillaged" from Gaza. Articles 48 and 49 speak of the 'occupying force' being able to lay and collect taxes from the occupied. That ended when Israel handed Gaza over to Palestine. Gaza is surrounded on all sides by a vastly superior military force, therefore it is natural to assume that this superior military force will assert its dominance through air and sea. Not because they want to, but because they can. Moreover, Israel has the right to control who enters and leaves, since there are only two ways to enter Israel, via land or sea.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations state that an occupation occurs when "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Israel removed its troops in 2005. Therefore there is no real occupation of the Gaza Strip. And, the second clause of Article 42 reads in part, "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Once again, Israel removed all governmental influence over Gaza in 1993.

She goes on to state:

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance.

That is also false, since Palestine held parliamentary elections in 2006, whereby Hamas won control over the Gaza Strip. The fact that they are able to hold elections at all shows they have the ability to govern themselves.

Lastly, to sum up your argument Mr. Tinmore, the Al-Qassam Brigades (of Hamas) were heard telling IDF soldiers:

"From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life."



It is clear to me that the Palestinian Government places no value on the lives of its citizens. To think that in any way Israel wantonly slaughters innocent civilians is foolish, whilst you ignore the attitudes Palestine takes towards the sanctity of life.

I love how both you and this lady spin this out to make Israel look like it is a ruthless oppressive force out to slaughter and pillage like a bunch of barbarians. You must be joking.

Palestine likewise violates international law by launching rockets and initiating ground incursions into Israeli territory.​

Nobody has ever proven that to be true.

So the rockets are figments of peoples imaginations, and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by hamas never happened. Both are violations of International law and the Geneva conventions, PROOF ENOUGH TINMAN

Still no proof, huh.

What would you count as proof, the words of hamas officials who admit to targeting children with rockets and ground incursions. Both violations of INTERNATIONAL LAW as laid out in the UN charter and Geneva conventions

Plenty of proof there if you only open your eyes. but here you go proof positive of palestine being in breach of international law


SPECIAL REPORT Palestinians in Flagrant Violation of At Least 11 of 15 Treaties Abbas Just Signed The Tower

Palestinians in Flagrant Violation of At Least 11 of 15 Treaties Abbas Just Signed


Palestinian Violations: Hamas, a party which controls the Palestinian Authority legislature and governs territory claimed as part of the “State of Palestine,” routinely violates the Geneva Conventions. It exploits schools, mosques, hospitals and cultural centers to carry out attacks that violate Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. During the imprisonment of Gilad Shalit, Hamas violated the Third Geneva Convention, including the right to unfettered Red Cross access. Hamas also frequently uses human shields, a practice that violates Article 51(7) of the First Protocol of the Geneva Convention. Acts of “terrorism” are explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, as are “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

And Palestine falls down on defined territory as it has never agreed mutual borders with any of its neighbours. Isreal has more defined borders than the state of Palestine that has only existed since 1988

Israeli lie. Palestine has had international borders since 1924. They were defined by post war treaties.

The produce the treaties signed by a Palestinian representative that defines the borders of the state of Palestine, not the mandate of Palestine which is a completely different thing

Britain was the trustee for the territory. They defined Palestine's international borders through post war treaties.

 

[Phoenall]

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
------------------
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza Debunked The Nation

All changed once Israel gave up the occupation of gaza in August 2005. Now that it is no longer under occupation Israel can respond with violence against violence. So if hamas wants to attack a sovereign nation they must be prepared to accept return of fire.

Israeli lie. Gaza is still occupied. Israel is inside Gaza every day.

According to hamas gaza is not occupied, who should I believe the elected rulers or you ?

Ask Hamas if they can issue ID cards or passports. Ask them who controls imports and exports.

This do to destroy your bubble

Abbas Orders to Issue Palestine Passports - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva

Abbas orders the PA government to re-issue passports, identity cards, and other government documents so they include the "Palestine" stamp.

After he ordered all of the PA's institutions to stop using the term "Palestinian National Authority" on official documents, Abbas published new guidelines on Sunday, which order the PA government to re-issue passports, identity cards, registration documents, vehicle licenses, driver's licenses, stamps and postmarks.
Abbas's guidelines dictate that a new stamp which reads "the State of Palestine" be placed on all re-issued documents. His guidelines also state that the new "Palestine" ID cards and passports will be used "by all Palestinians, both in Palestine and in the diaspora".


As for imports/exports if they had not engaged in violence and terrorism towards Israel they would have had full control over them. Now while a legal blockade is in place they don't, the situation could be resolved tomorrow by agreeing to talks and mutual borders.

 

[Phoenall]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

And Palestine falls down on defined territory as it has never agreed mutual borders with any of its neighbours. Isreal has more defined borders than the state of Palestine that has only existed since 1988

Israeli lie. Palestine has had international borders since 1924. They were defined by post war treaties.

The produce the treaties signed by a Palestinian representative that defines the borders of the state of Palestine, not the mandate of Palestine which is a completely different thing

Britain was the trustee for the territory. They defined Palestine's international borders through post war treaties.

WRONG as in 1924 the land was the MANDATE OF PALESTINE and that is what the treaty defined, it did not define the nation or state of Palestine.

Keep trying one day you could get something correct

 

[Challenger]

By the way, the settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights are not illegal:

Articles Israeli Settlements Are Not Illegal

Uh and he quoted a staunchly pro-Israel Blogger to boot. Nay objectivity.

 

[Challenger]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders?
----------------------
There are no 1967 borders. The so called 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines. They are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.
----------------------
The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States.

Last but not least, a ‘right to existence’ for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this ‘right to existence’ is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Israel s right to exist Is it a real issue The Electronic Intifada

And Palestine falls down on defined territory as it has never agreed mutual borders with any of its neighbours. Isreal has more defined borders than the state of Palestine that has only existed since 1988

Israeli lie. Palestine has had international borders since 1924. They were defined by post war treaties.

The produce the treaties signed by a Palestinian representative that defines the borders of the state of Palestine, not the mandate of Palestine which is a completely different thing

Britain was the trustee for the territory. They defined Palestine's international borders through post war treaties.

WRONG as in 1924 the land was the MANDATE OF PALESTINE and that is what the treaty defined, it did not define the nation or state of Palestine.

Keep trying one day you could get something correct

Well actually its the Mandate FOR Palestine which is a legal and administrative instrument, not a treaty. Keep trying, one day you could get something correct.

 

[Challenger]

Article 42 of the 1899 Hague convention states, "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself." The key phrase here is "able to assert itself". The IAF controls the air over Gaza, the Israeli Navy controls the sea around Gaza and the IDF not onlt prevents ingress and egrees but has carried out armed "punitive" incursions into Gaza. The Gaza strip is surrunded by "security fences/walls" with regularly spaced watchtowers along it. That's "placed under the authority of the hostile army" by any resonable definition and that's what the ICJ thought too.

 

[Humanity]

1) Is Israel oppressing Palestine? Yes. Control of air, land and sea around Gaza. Restriction of movement. Restriction of food. Restriction of materials.

2) Is Israel killing Palestinian citizens out of malice? Probably not.

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes of course.

4) Is Israel evil? No more or less evil than Hamas.

5) Does Israel deserve to be funded by the United States? No opinion

6) Do you think Palestine might be oppressing its own citizens? To some degree Hamas oppresses Palestinians right to vote. I think an election is way overdue.

7) Do you think Palestine cares about its own people? Yes. I do believe that Palestinians care about Palestinians. Why wouldn't they?

8) Should Israel be evicted from their homeland? Israel should remain where it is. It's there now. However, I do not necessarily believe that it's in the 'right' place!

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders? Israel should withdraw from occupied territory.

10) Do you think Israel cares about Palestine? I don't believe that Israel cares too much about the Palestinian people.

 

[Humanity]

Moreover, if Russia or China started lobbing ICBMs at us, we wouldn't tolerate that much either, now would we?

And if the USA occupied Russian or Chinese territory? What then?

 

[Daniyel]

P F Tinmore you didn't respond to the crucial part of my post earlier..I'll get down to my point.
Annexing occupied territory is one thing, so the following question comes up;
Is the WB occupied or is it part of the state of Israel?
The lately-announced- wait there was an official announcement? it is necessary- Virtual state of Palestine hold no territory.
While Israel is the governing rule of the WB, there is no doubt about that except for the areas Israel allowed the PA to govern.
Lets ask again, who was it occupied from and when?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore you didn't respond to the crucial part of my post earlier..I'll get down to my point.
Annexing occupied territory is one thing, so the following question comes up;
Is the WB occupied or is it part of the state of Israel?
The lately-announced- wait there was an official announcement? it is necessary- Virtual state of Palestine hold no territory.
While Israel is the governing rule of the WB, there is no doubt about that except for the areas Israel allowed the PA to govern.
Lets ask again, who was it occupied from and when?

The West Bank is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[Daniyel]

P F Tinmore you didn't respond to the crucial part of my post earlier..I'll get down to my point.
Annexing occupied territory is one thing, so the following question comes up;
Is the WB occupied or is it part of the state of Israel?
The lately-announced- wait there was an official announcement? it is necessary- Virtual state of Palestine hold no territory.
While Israel is the governing rule of the WB, there is no doubt about that except for the areas Israel allowed the PA to govern.
Lets ask again, who was it occupied from and when?

The West Bank is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So you said..but here what doesn't work out in that claim you made.
1.When was the State of Palestine announced and what borders?
2.Since when the West Bank is a Palestinian territory controlled by the State of Palestine?
3.Didn't Jordan occupied the West Bank - 1948-1967?