BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...

[P F Tinmore]

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

You know my response. You ignore it because it proves you wrong and you don't like it. Speed dial me up the Mandate for Palestine -- AGAIN. Or the Oslo Accords -- AGAIN.

It's not my fault that you are a slow learner.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Don't give me stupid examples like Ahed -- who was not sitting in her home but was part of on-going violent regular demonstrations.

Demonstrations in their own village. Who was that so called violence against?

The people they are throwing rocks and molotovs at? If they are just "in their own village" then who are they demonstrating against? Who is going to see them? Why bother?

So then, why does the IDF (Israeli Doofus Force) go to quell a demonstration that does not matter?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.https://sites.google.com/site/walid...state-as-a-subject-of-international-law#_ftn4

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

When she declared Independence after the British Mandate expired, pursuant to the U.N. Partition Plan, that was voted on by all the member states at that time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

When she declared Independence after the British Mandate expired, pursuant to the U.N. Partition Plan, that was voted on by all the member states at that time.

Israel never claimed the proposed Resolution 181 borders. And besides, Resolution181 was never implemented by the Security Council as required. Anything Resolution 181 is a non issue.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Hollie]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

When she declared Independence after the British Mandate expired, pursuant to the U.N. Partition Plan, that was voted on by all the member states at that time.

Israel never claimed the proposed Resolution 181 borders. And besides, Resolution181 was never implemented by the Security Council as required. Anything Resolution 181 is a non issue.

But thanks for playing.

Resolution 181 was not a requirement for establishment of the State of Israel.

That's all been explained to you repeatedly and tediously.

 

[Hollie]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

Rather than pollute this thread (as you do most others), with your rabid Jew hatreds, there is a thread dedicated to your whining about the creation of the State of Israel.

You should go there. As you know, your whining about the State of Israel has been addressed in excruciating detail.

 

[theliq]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ et al,

"Door Mat of Israel:" Well, that is simply a repeated ⇒ desperate and inflammatory political rhetoric (by anti-American and anti-Israel elements) that pushes the image that America is the habitually abuse or humiliation by Israel. There is absolutely no such thing as a perfect political relationship; although the Declaration of Principles (DOP) is an idealized aspiration. In fact, this is one of the very few (negative) "absolutes" that can be expressed in terms of political relationships. Political relationships are best described in comparatives. In this case, the US-Israeli Political Relationship is the best of all political relationships in the greater region of the Middle East. And the burden, by fiscal density, may be highest in the Middle East, it is far from the most significant in the world and US National Security Interests.

View attachment 174846
​

As you can see, while Israel is at the ≈ median, it falls in between Bahrain (which gets a little more) and Qatar (which gets a little less).

Eagle...you do realise the BRICK she was alluding to was none other than Furher Donald Trump,just out of view.......now that is FUNNY and Ironic,being Israel dictates All American Policy as America, is now the Official 2nd State of Zionist Terrorist Israel...........How the Mighty have fallen,reduced to being the DOOR MAT OF ISRAEL.......

(COMMENT)

I have no idea how to translate the words of description: "Official 2nd State of Zionist Terrorist Israel"

While Israel can be said to be a "strategic ally" in Regional Terms, it is not the only ally being cultivates. The Mediterranean Dialogue, s a set of discussions pertaining to expanded linkages --- not only with Israel; but also in a developing and structured partnerships with Russia and its network of allies.

In terms of "terrorism," it is perspective. It was only the other day that Rabbi Raziel Shevach was killed in a drive-by shooting near the city of Nalbus, West Bank (January 10, 2017). t can be a vision in which Dalal Mughrabi, who headed a squad of 13 Palestinian (1978) who set out from Lebanon towards Israel, in several small boats.
How to Respond to Honors for Palestinian Killer of US Senator’s Niece

One of the terrorists, Hussain Fayadh, later explained to the Lebanese Television station Al-Manar what happened: “Sister Dalal al-Mughrabi had a conversation with the American journalist. Before killing her, Dalal asked: ‘How did you enter Palestine?’ [Rubin] answered: ‘They gave me a visa.’ Dalal said: ‘Did you get your visa from me, or from Israel? I have the right to this land. Why didn’t you come to me?’ Then Dalal opened fire on her.”

Mughrabi, Fayadh, and the others walked to the nearby Coastal Road and hijacked an Israeli bus. They murdered 36 passengers, 12 of them children.
SOURCE: The algemeiner, Story by Stephen M. Flatow

The comparison between the Israeli Forces and the Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters of Arab Palestinians is no contest. Israel simply does not have a past history of criminal behaviors ⇒ hijack aircraft, capture and hold cruise ships, intentionally target civilian people, objects and locations. Israel does not threaten to use unlawful violence to incite fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate Israeli citizenry in the pursuit of goals that are central to the Arab Palestinian key political, religious, or ideological agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are out of kilter Rocco,I love the term DOOR MAT because you are,Zionists own you..Real Estate.the Banks,the Federal Reserve,Financial Companies,Media=All Zionist own...most Retail and Manufacturing..American Tech and others basing themselves in Zionist Israel!!!!..the Enormity of American Workers Taxpayer money sent to Zionist Israel every year....propping up Israel's economy......Americans of course are Zionist Terrorist Israel's DOOR MAT....you just are too slow to realize IT....only in America as they say..........with little respect Rocco......reading your post,for an educated man,you really on reflection are worse that some on here because you have the ability to Cherry Pick what suits your idea of in your mind ...you opinionated NONE FACTS...as Tinnie exposed earlier to you Rocco......you are so Bias sometimes,it does you NO CREDIT AT ALL.....so stop it...steven

 

[theliq]

Here we go, folks. Not that I don't enjoy "I told ya sos," but...

This report concludes that Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude that available evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in instruments of international law...

https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.u...heid-occupation-executive-summary-english.pdf

The UN is an anti-Israeli, anti-US organization and isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

Thank God for that.....although when the UN granted them Statehood the Zionist Terrorists were Sucking the UN off,so happy the Zionists were...now they play to a different tune,with the Blessing of the US....how America have fallen...NOW RIGHTLY SEEN AS ZIONIST TERRORIST ISRAEL's .........DOOR MAT...steven

 

[theliq]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

Rather than pollute this thread (as you do most others), with your rabid Jew hatreds, there is a thread dedicated to your whining about the creation of the State of Israel.

You should go there. As you know, your whining about the State of Israel has been addressed in excruciating detail.

I cannot RECALL TINNIE SAYING HE HATES JEWS......he may hate Terrorist Zionists BUT THAT IS A FAR CRY FROM REAL,DECENT Jews....these SYNTHETICO's from WHOREALLYKNOW's....who have turned Israel into ZIONISTAN....which is a fair call,why have the Zionist's tried to eliminate Real Jews? and Palestinians prior to 1948 and ever since....Every Zionist has Semitic Blood on their hands,Zionists AIN'T A SEMITIC PEOPLE,JUST PLASTIC CONVERTS WHO THINK IN SOME WAY THEY ARE REAL Jews.....No Real Jews are a fine people(No decent educated Jew would ever become a Zionist Cult Member...)that Cult for only originally NON-JEWS who have converted(so they say???) Nope they have No Reason to be in PALESTINE....THAT SHOULD BE FOR Real Jews and the Palestinians ....THE ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES with Direct Lineage to Abraham.............FACT...Who and Why are the Invader Zionists even there???...theliq

 

[theliq]

The comparison between the Israeli Forces and the Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters of Arab Palestinians is no contest.

Indeed, Israel is trying to steal all of Palestine and get rid of the Palestinians while the Palestinians are trying to defend themselves. There is no contest.

Palestinians are not trying to defend themselves -- as they are not under attack.

What they are trying to do is gain sovereign control of territory over which they have no sovereignty and have never had any sovereignty, based on the idea that the territory is "theirs" and they have sole rights to self-determination there, while failing to put into place any of the requirements for sovereignty.

Not Under Attack....YOU R A MORON

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

When she declared Independence after the British Mandate expired, pursuant to the U.N. Partition Plan, that was voted on by all the member states at that time.

Israel never claimed the proposed Resolution 181 borders. And besides, Resolution181 was never implemented by the Security Council as required. Anything Resolution 181 is a non issue.

But thanks for playing.

Resolution 181 was not a requirement for establishment of the State of Israel.

That's all been explained to you repeatedly and tediously.

Indeed, but somebody always brings it up.

 

[Hollie]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

​

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

When she declared Independence after the British Mandate expired, pursuant to the U.N. Partition Plan, that was voted on by all the member states at that time.

Israel never claimed the proposed Resolution 181 borders. And besides, Resolution181 was never implemented by the Security Council as required. Anything Resolution 181 is a non issue.

But thanks for playing.

Resolution 181 was not a requirement for establishment of the State of Israel.

That's all been explained to you repeatedly and tediously.

Indeed, but somebody always brings it up.

Indeed, and you make the same failed argument every time.

 

[Shusha]

So then, why does the IDF <snip> go to quell a demonstration that does not matter?

Well, because in Nabi Saleh, as an example, the protest is violent and marches toward Halamish. The IDF stands on the road preventing the violent protesters from reaching the Jewish town, thus protecting both the Jews there and the Palestinians. So they are NOT sitting at home. Nor are they protesting in their village.

 

[theliq]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In the reading on Sovereignty, in several of the classic journals, you will find that the concepts and definitions of Sovereignty vary.

This essay, in discussing some recent contributions to the contemporary debate on sovereignty,
focuses on what is at stake in this debate. While most authors today agree that the meaning of
the concept of sovereignty is open to change across time and space, students of international
law and international relations disagree about the causes and consequences of this conceptual
change.
SOURCE: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.2 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved

However, this sounds Essay by Dr Jen Bartelson, is a little more cmlcated then that which we need here in this discussion group. The source that seems easiest to understand is that of Dr Abdulrahim, Beirut University. LET ME SAY, I don't have an original thought on this page (I don''t want to be accused of plagiarism. It ALL is derivative from the professional journals and academic publications (mostly from Dr Abdulrahim).

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM
Professor of Law
Beirut Arab University
Faculty of Law and Political Science

State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
​

As stated in a previous chapter dealing with a State, a territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.

Perhaps you could provide some documents showing where Israel legally acquired any land.

I await your response.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

(COMMENT)

The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of a State. For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any part of the territory it was claiming.

Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.

A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State.

State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories.

(IMPORTANT)

While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.

Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.

(COMMENT)

There are several aspects here that are important.

When the Jordanians broke all ties with the West Bank and holdings in Jerusalem, that was made public by an Sovereign decree. Israel did not fight (act of conquest) for this territory, it was abandon.

All nations, whether they make a published announcement or nt, recognize the sovereignty like action over all that which Israel controls. Even the EU recognizes the difference between Israel proper and those areas of industry and commerce that require such goods manufactured within the territory as special.

That is an undeniable ""indirect recognition." And once a "recognition" is made, it cannot be withdrawn.

Most Respectfully,
R

Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.

When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

When she declared Independence after the British Mandate expired, pursuant to the U.N. Partition Plan, that was voted on by all the member states at that time.

Israel never claimed the proposed Resolution 181 borders. And besides, Resolution181 was never implemented by the Security Council as required. Anything Resolution 181 is a non issue.

But thanks for playing.

Resolution 181 was not a requirement for establishment of the State of Israel.

That's all been explained to you repeatedly and tediously.

Without the Agreement by the Security Council....Israel is an ILLEGAL STATE it has not been Ratified

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why does the IDF <snip> go to quell a demonstration that does not matter?

Well, because in Nabi Saleh, as an example, the protest is violent and marches toward Halamish. The IDF stands on the road preventing the violent protesters from reaching the Jewish town, thus protecting both the Jews there and the Palestinians. So they are NOT sitting at home. Nor are they protesting in their village.

For first time, weekly Nabi Saleh protest reaches destination: its own spring

Dozens of residents of Nabi Saleh, joined by supporters from Israel and abroad, marked a historic victory on Friday when they succeeded in reaching the village’s confiscated spring.

Nabi Saleh is a small village of approximately 550 people, twenty kilometers northwest of Ramallah in the West Bank. Halamish (also known as Neveh Tzuf ) was established on lands belonging to the villages of Nabi Saleh and Deir Nidham in 1976.

For first time, weekly Nabi Saleh protest reaches destination: its own spring | +972 Magazine

They are protesting in their own village.

 

[rylah]

So then, why does the IDF <snip> go to quell a demonstration that does not matter?

Well, because in Nabi Saleh, as an example, the protest is violent and marches toward Halamish. The IDF stands on the road preventing the violent protesters from reaching the Jewish town, thus protecting both the Jews there and the Palestinians. So they are NOT sitting at home. Nor are they protesting in their village.

For first time, weekly Nabi Saleh protest reaches destination: its own spring

Dozens of residents of Nabi Saleh, joined by supporters from Israel and abroad, marked a historic victory on Friday when they succeeded in reaching the village’s confiscated spring.

Nabi Saleh is a small village of approximately 550 people, twenty kilometers northwest of Ramallah in the West Bank. Halamish (also known as Neveh Tzuf ) was established on lands belonging to the villages of Nabi Saleh and Deir Nidham in 1976.

For first time, weekly Nabi Saleh protest reaches destination: its own spring | +972 Magazine

They are protesting in their own village.

That's a lie,
they basically have to reach 2 big roads to an area adjacent to the slope of a mountain where Halamish and other Arab villages are located. It's a different area geographically and visually, a different neighborhood.

That claim is based on a say so. Since the Tamimis first established their settlement of 5 houses there in 1877, their neighborhood always stayed in the same location close to the green to the north-east from the land they claim, their Nabi Saleh settlement never reached the spring and it's apparent for anyone who looks at a satellite image -
they're reaching out 2 km walking with their kids from their village, to a central road where they can create confrontation with police.

These are all coordinated actions, and recently we see they're being done at intervals of 10-15 min within the beginning of Hamas confrontations.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There has been no dancing around the at all. You keep asking a question, and the answer is the same. It has been explained many many times, it just doesn't happen to be the answer you want to hear. And, I suspect, that your understanding of the Terminology lke "Defined Territory" is actually different from what you believe it to be.

In any event, the current system of law did not operate under you assumptions in either 1948, or in 1967.

(ANSWER)

Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.

Which leads us back to the question that you have been dancing around for years.
When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

(ANSWER #2)

The WHEN: May 1948 Self-Determination • 1948-1949 The Defense of the Territorial Sovereignty • Post 1949 Maintenance of territorial Sovereignty.

The past practice shows that the existence of fully defined boundaries is not required and that what matters is the existence of an effective political authority having control over a particular portion of land. In 1913, Albania was recognized as a State by a number of States even though it lacked settled boundaries, and Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.
SOURCE: (b) A Defined Territory • A State as a Subject of International Law • Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law, Beirut University​

If you are looking for some fantasy deed to the territory, you are asking for something that does not exist (nonsensical0, as it was not a necessary facet of the law then. The US does not have a deed. In some cases, there are treaties that reset territorial boundaries (as in the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty and the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty. And in both cases, the boundaries are discussed without any consideration or detriment to any existing right or claim by the Arab-Palestinian.

(ANSWER ONCE AGAIN)

Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as "territorial sovereignty." Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. Israel began to exercise complete territorial sovereignty since May 1948 (The WHEN).

• The exclusive exercise of authority by the Israelis is well understood; and complained about quite frequently by the Arab Palestinians.

• It is difficult to determine just what territory the Arab Palestinians maintain such authority over that is to the exclusion of any other state.

• It is difficult to determine it the Arab Palestinians had ever maintained such authority over any territory to the exclusion of any other state since the time of the Armistice of Mudros.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is essentially, entirely incorrect.

Without the Agreement by the Security Council....Israel is an ILLEGAL STATE it has not been Ratified

(OBSERVATION)

ARTICLE 3 • Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

ARTICLE 6 • Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

ARTICLE 7 • Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that there is any sch thing as an "Illegal State." It is either a state, or not a state. Legality does not enter into the equation.

Recognition by the Security Council is NOT a prerequisite for statehood.

Most Respectfully,
R