Arab-Israeli conflict Q&A

[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?

Then it would be as legal as Israel's occupation of the west bank

So you believe that the USA can legally wander over to Russia and occupy a chunk of Russian land and call it USA?

 

[Humanity]

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.

And the treaties set out the borders of said MANDATE, not the borders of a state or nation

Not true!

Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.

Which are the borders of the MANDATE FOE PALESTINE and not the STATE OF PALESTINE. When the mandate dissolved in 1988 the borders of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE became the BORDERS OF ISRAEL. Palestine has still to negotiate its borders under the UN charter, UN resolutions and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Links?

You will be waiting a LONG time for Phoney to provide ANY link to support the hot air he blows up his own arse!

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

And the treaties set out the borders of said MANDATE, not the borders of a state or nation

Not true!

Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.

Which are the borders of the MANDATE FOE PALESTINE and not the STATE OF PALESTINE. When the mandate dissolved in 1988 the borders of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE became the BORDERS OF ISRAEL. Palestine has still to negotiate its borders under the UN charter, UN resolutions and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

So then why were they still there after the mandate left Palestine?

Britain was merely the trustee. It did not own anything and could not give anything away.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

Actually, the Hague Convention does apply.

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.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

As an example, the ICJ Advisory Opinion stipulates:

Applicable law.
United Nations Charter - General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force - Right of peoples to self-determination.
International humanitarian law - Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 ---

Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949- Applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Human rights law -International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Convention on the Rights of the Child- Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law - Applicability of human rights instruments outside national territory - Applicability of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

- See more at: ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - ICJ document 9 July 2004

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

Actually, the Hague Convention does apply.

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.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

As an example, the ICJ Advisory Opinion stipulates:

Applicable law.
United Nations Charter - General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force - Right of peoples to self-determination.
International humanitarian law - Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 ---

Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949- Applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Human rights law -International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Convention on the Rights of the Child- Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law - Applicability of human rights instruments outside national territory - Applicability of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

- See more at: ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - ICJ document 9 July 2004

Most Respectfully,
R

Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force
​

Like when Israel's military attacked Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes in 1947/1948.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That was in fact a "civil war" between to sets of inhabitants.

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

Actually, the Hague Convention does apply.

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.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

As an example, the ICJ Advisory Opinion stipulates:

Applicable law.
United Nations Charter - General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force - Right of peoples to self-determination.
International humanitarian law - Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 ---

Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949- Applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Human rights law -International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Convention on the Rights of the Child- Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law - Applicability of human rights instruments outside national territory - Applicability of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

- See more at: ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - ICJ document 9 July 2004

Most Respectfully,
R

Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force
​

Like when Israel's military attacked Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes in 1947/1948.

(COMMENT)

The conflict is not a takeover by force, in the sense that a foreign power invaded. It was a conflict between two domestic forces. There was no Israeli military force in 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That was in fact a "civil war" between to sets of inhabitants.

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

Actually, the Hague Convention does apply.

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.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

(COMMENT)

As an example, the ICJ Advisory Opinion stipulates:

Applicable law.
United Nations Charter - General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force - Right of peoples to self-determination.
International humanitarian law - Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 ---

Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949- Applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Human rights law -International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Convention on the Rights of the Child- Relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law - Applicability of human rights instruments outside national territory - Applicability of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

- See more at: ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - ICJ document 9 July 2004

Most Respectfully,
R

Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force
​

Like when Israel's military attacked Palestinian civilians driving them out of their homes in 1947/1948.

(COMMENT)

The conflict is not a takeover by force, in the sense that a foreign power invaded. It was a conflict between two domestic forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

 

[Dogmaphobe]

1) Is Israel oppressing Palestine? Yes or No? Why?



Well, I suppose if I were one of those many people here who thinks that killing Jews is some sort of Allah-given right for any Arab, then I would see any attempt to prevent such as "oppression". I don't, however, and so it follows logically that I don't.

2) Is Israel killing Palestinian citizens out of malice? Yes or No? Why?

No. They target known terrorist sites and positions

3) Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes or No? Why?

Certainly yes. The right to life is basic and people have the right to defend themselves against those whose chief desire is to take it away.


4) Is Israel evil? Yes or No? Why?

No. Jewish people have a highly developed sense of ethics compared to most.

5) Does Israel deserve to be funded by the United States? Yes or No? Why?


Since the enemies of Israel are funded to the degree they are by so much of the world, then funding the one place in the region that reflects western values seems only right.


6) Do you think Palestine might be oppressing its own citizens? Yes or No? Why?

Definitely. The preoccupation with Killing Jews above any other desire in life has kept them from having the state they try to claim is their actual aim.

7) Do you think Palestine cares about its own people? Yes or No? Why?

No. They would not intentionally drive up civilian casualties like they do if they care. Propaganda always comes before human life.


8) Should Israel be evicted from their homeland? Yes or No? Why?
No. They are a people with the right to self-determination in their homeland.


9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders? Yes or No? Why?

No. They are indefensible.

10) Do you think Israel cares about Palestine? Yes or No? Why?

Certainly more than the other way around.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The British White Paper speaks to a "Palestine" (Order in Council) that covered a much larger area than that which we speak of today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the whole of "Palestine" was, in fact, a territory that extended to the Mesopotamian Border (Iraq). And to this day, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is still inside the former Mandate. The State of Israel or the JNH, is but a portion of the former Mandate. This are argument does not fly in the face of the Mandate.

The State of Israel was declared, not during the Mandate Period, but immediately after the Mandate terminated and under the Successor Government, in accordance with the Step Preparatory to Independence as approved by the General Assembly. The terms and understandings behind the Mandate were considered when the General Assembly passed the Partition Plan.

Today, we deal with the outcomes, and not time travel to an era long since overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

English not your first language I see Mohamed, show were I stated they were not occupied territories. But hamas the leaders of Palestine should know better than you if their land is occupied, and they say gaza is no longer occupied. So the one nation that really matters contradicts the rest of the world..................

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

Try again as the LoN made the decisions as Britain did not have the powers to do so. This was just a paper exercise to placate the arab muslims. Also remember that the Palestine spoken of now includes part of the Sinai, Jordan, part of Syria, Part of Lebenon, part of Egypt and part of Saudi. So the JEWISH NATIONAL HOME is in fact founded in the Palestine of 1919 which is vastly different to the Palestine of today.

 

[Humanity]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders? Yes or No? Why?

No. They are indefensible.

In what way are the borders indefensible?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In what way are the borders indefensible?

You've never seen a map, boy?

 

[Humanity]

In what way are the borders indefensible?

You've never seen a map, boy?

Why is it that people cannot answer a freaking question around here....

Always a question with a question...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The British White Paper speaks to a "Palestine" (Order in Council) that covered a much larger area than that which we speak of today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the whole of "Palestine" was, in fact, a territory that extended to the Mesopotamian Border (Iraq). And to this day, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is still inside the former Mandate. The State of Israel or the JNH, is but a portion of the former Mandate. This are argument does not fly in the face of the Mandate.

The State of Israel was declared, not during the Mandate Period, but immediately after the Mandate terminated and under the Successor Government, in accordance with the Step Preparatory to Independence as approved by the General Assembly. The terms and understandings behind the Mandate were considered when the General Assembly passed the Partition Plan.

Today, we deal with the outcomes, and not time travel to an era long since overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where was Israel's land? What were its borders?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The British White Paper speaks to a "Palestine" (Order in Council) that covered a much larger area than that which we speak of today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the whole of "Palestine" was, in fact, a territory that extended to the Mesopotamian Border (Iraq). And to this day, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is still inside the former Mandate. The State of Israel or the JNH, is but a portion of the former Mandate. This are argument does not fly in the face of the Mandate.

The State of Israel was declared, not during the Mandate Period, but immediately after the Mandate terminated and under the Successor Government, in accordance with the Step Preparatory to Independence as approved by the General Assembly. The terms and understandings behind the Mandate were considered when the General Assembly passed the Partition Plan.

Today, we deal with the outcomes, and not time travel to an era long since overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, at San Remo in 1920, the British got the territory that in 1921 they divided into Palestine and Transjordan and all of what became Iraq. (France gave up northern Iraq in exchange for 25 percent of oil revenues.) The French got greater Syria, which they divided into a coastal state, Lebanon, and four states to the east that would later become Syria. It was not the "whole of Palestine" as you so ignorantly claim. Palestine was more or less what Palestine/Israel is today, Trans Jordan and Iraq were separate, and administered separately.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[montelatici]

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.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

English not your first language I see Mohamed, show were I stated they were not occupied territories. But hamas the leaders of Palestine should know better than you if their land is occupied, and they say gaza is no longer occupied. So the one nation that really matters contradicts the rest of the world..................

Menachem, Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that Gaza was "not under siege" when the Egypt opened the border after the Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian election. Once the coup against the democratically elected government took place and the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed, the border was closed and the siege resumed.