Civilians vs Combatents

[Hollie]

Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants

If the IDF can do this:



There can be no justification for this:

Apologetics for your islamic terrorist heroes makes you look like quite the fool.

During the first half of 2014 there were more than 4,000 rockets fired at israel. Islamic terrorism carries consequences. Your apparent insistence that acts of war by Islamic terrorists are to be granted an exception from retaliation and reprisal are nonsensical and pointless.

Further, you seem to have some silly notion that a precision munition going through a window will not level an entire building. There's no requirement that precision strikes do nothing more than ruffle the blinds and leave an islamo-stain on the carpet. High explosive infidel munitions can't discriminate between Islamic terrorists and the civilians / infrastructure your heroes use as cover.

There's a solution that Islamic terrorists can employ to avoid becoming a red stain. Can you guess what that solution is?

 

[Shusha]

Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants

If the IDF can do this:



There can be no justification for this:

The false assumption here is that it is possible to accomplish the former in each and every case.

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

I agree with you... ... ....

Yeah, "intent" is a BIG aspect in most major crimes and issues of this nature. You have to examine questions of venue (the location of the event) and the jurisdiction (official authority over discretionary decisions and judgments --- and ) on a case-by-case or individual level.

Similarly, proper identification of parties (friend or foe) (civilians or combatants) are not as simple as these picture make them out to be. From these picture, you can "GUESS" that they are Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel (on rapid recall or rapid response); but that is by no means the only possible answer. And you can tell by the other civilians that the picture is not of an event of something unusual. The civilian population in the immediate surrounding area does not appear to pose any threat. While it might be assumed that this picture these pictures were taken on an Israeli beach; not unlike the beach where Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, was among 38 people shot to death by PLO terrorists on an Israeli beach. It is not unusual for these Palestinian terrorist target areas to receive augmented armed protection.

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscriminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

(REFERENCES)

Protocol i --- Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
​

Rule #3 Customary IHL: Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I

All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.
​

(COMMENT)

There are many things that are not as cut'n'dry as they first seem.

I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant --- given that the HoAP have such an extensive history of criminal behaviors relative to the extreme indifference to prohibitions on the direct targeting, on a routine basis of civilians and the total disregard for the for civilians in the routine rocket and mortar attacks.

THUS, allegations by the pro-Palestinian Movement that provides direct support to the HoAP are really diversionary complaints to mitigate their disregard for:

I. The Principle of Distinction --- Customary IHL

1.The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
3.Definition of Combatants
4.Definition of Armed Forces
5.Definition of Civilians
11.Indiscriminate Attacks
12.Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
15.Precautions in Attack
17.Choice of Means and Methods of Warfare
20.Advance Warning
21.Target Selection
23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
96.Hostage-Taking
97.Human Shields
​

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit in muddying the waters regarding civilian vs combatent, and in the use of human shields. Otherwise I agree - Hamas shows little regard for civilian lives, and there is simply no way you can muddy it enough to imply a child is a combatent.

I could muddy it very easily by asking at what age does a palestinian child reach their majority, and then say that is an adult and not a child under their laws.

Not even you could stretch it to encompass a 3 yr old.

Want to bet, as all it would take is a 3 year old child in a buggy that is really a suicide bomb. Then the IDF get the word that this is happening so they give warnings before opening fire. And for the record this happened a few years back when a family went to visit a sick relative in an Israeli hospital. Now you know why the IDF stop everyone trying to enter Israel

 

[Phoenall]

What's a civilian? What's a combatent? Is it EVER ok to target civilians? If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?

Depends on how many others will be saved by doing so is the answer. As in WW2 when the allies bombed the German nuclear laboratories with the deaths of thousands of civilian workers. For every civilian that died then, 2000 were saved by all accounts

 

[Phoenall]

What's a civilian? What's a combatent? Is it EVER ok to target civilians? If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?

It is never permissible to target only civilians.

But the days of two armies lining up across from one another in a field outside of town are long gone. In some situations, especially in urban environments, civilian casualties are unavoidable. So yes, it is permissible to target military installations and objectives, knowing there will be civilian casualties. They should be minimized. Its a weighing of the value of a military resource and the number of casualties, as awful as that sounds. What is the entrance to a tunnel worth, in terms of lives? 5? 10? 20? 50? What is a cache of weapons worth? 100? 1000? What is a year without rockets or suicide bombs worth? 2000 lives? 10,000? Its a judgement call. A difficult one. How does one even make those decisions?

And it has to be considered from both sides, as well. If your enemy is about to destroy the entrance to a tunnel, and that entrance is in your home -- do you keep your family there, on the roof, hoping that will deter the enemy from firing, risking them? Or do you keep your family safe and remove them? And whose responsibility is it, then, for the loss of your family, if it happens? Do you choose your family or do you choose the "righteousness" of your cause? And if you choose your cause -- why do you blame your enemy?

Interesting points - all (no easy answers to any of these questions)...

But at some point...is a line crossed where the civilian toll is beyond the pale? I'm thinking of Russian strikes in the Syrian conflict that have targeted supposed "terrorist" strongholds with what appears to be no regard for civilians, hospitals or schools? Does it then cross into criminality?

How about looking at America's abysmal history of such events, how many died in Dresden or the other major cities on the push to Berlin. How many died in Japan when the atom bombs were dropped, and remember to count those dying now from the radiation. Or how about Korea when the civilians were pounded from afar. Lastly the war America wants to ignore Vietnam when drugs were handed out to soldiers to numb the pain, and turned them into psychopaths.

 

[Challenger]

Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants

If the IDF can do this:



There can be no justification for this:

The false assumption here is that it is possible to accomplish the former in each and every case.

Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?

 

[Challenger]

There is no reason to assume that Arab threats from all quarters will rise over time, given the rise in Jihadism, Islamic Extremism, Palestinian and other Arab Terrorism, and the Western communities that are attempting to diminish Israeli national defense and security through the malfeasance under the color of law; a reoccurring pattern of Jewish Persecution duplicated over time in the past. Israel knows this, but does not play the virtual victim on the level the Arab Palestinians exemplify. Israel just quietly prepares for the next attempt at annihilation.

What utter drivel. Zionist Israel needs nukes to combat "hostile"Palestinians who are going to "annihilate" them....

...yeah, right, whatever.

There is no member of the Arab league or combination of members of the Arab league that has the military capability to take on Zionist Israel now or in the foreseeable future; the US has made that a certainty with their "qualitive edge" and material support.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants

If the IDF can do this:



There can be no justification for this:

The false assumption here is that it is possible to accomplish the former in each and every case.

Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?

Ever thought that the last two clips show that Israel does everything in its power to minimise civilian casualties. While hamas wants the maximum civilian casualties it can get

 

[Phoenall]

There is no reason to assume that Arab threats from all quarters will rise over time, given the rise in Jihadism, Islamic Extremism, Palestinian and other Arab Terrorism, and the Western communities that are attempting to diminish Israeli national defense and security through the malfeasance under the color of law; a reoccurring pattern of Jewish Persecution duplicated over time in the past. Israel knows this, but does not play the virtual victim on the level the Arab Palestinians exemplify. Israel just quietly prepares for the next attempt at annihilation.

What utter drivel. Zionist Israel needs nukes to combat "hostile"Palestinians who are going to "annihilate" them....

...yeah, right, whatever.

There is no member of the Arab league or combination of members of the Arab league that has the military capability to take on Zionist Israel now or in the foreseeable future; the US has made that a certainty with their "qualitive edge" and material support.

Gere we go again with rat boy bringing the threat of nukes, so he can claim that the Zionists are making the threats.


The combined forces of Islam along with their nuclear weapons could wipe out Israel in one day, so I don't know were you get your drivel from.

 

[Shusha]

Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips? [/quote]

Well, THAT is an interesting question. You are suggesting that it is possible, not just for Israel, but for every nation in the world, to conduct warfare such that no civilians are killed and that all targeting is precise and takes out only the military objective - whether it be a hostile enemy, a munitions store, a base of operations, a tunnel, etc -- even if those military objectives are placed in close proximity to civilians. Wow. That is a tall order. Do you really think that is currently possible? Would you hold all nations to that same standard? If we were to hold all nations to that same standard, should the nation which has been most successful at achieving this high standard not be held in esteem for achieving it?

 

[Challenger]

Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?

Well, THAT is an interesting question. You are suggesting that it is possible, not just for Israel, but for every nation in the world, to conduct warfare such that no civilians are killed and that all targeting is precise and takes out only the military objective - whether it be a hostile enemy, a munitions store, a base of operations, a tunnel, etc -- even if those military objectives are placed in close proximity to civilians. Wow. That is a tall order. Do you really think that is currently possible? Would you hold all nations to that same standard? If we were to hold all nations to that same standard, should the nation which has been most successful at achieving this high standard not be held in esteem for achieving it?[/QUOTE]

We are. We've had 30+ years of shootings, bombing, rocket and mortar attacks against both civillian and military targets, and we never once carpet bombed Belfast, Crossmaglen, Lisburn, Ballymena, Londonderry or anwhere else the PIRA operated. Almost 4000 dead and ten times that amount wounded or injured and we still managed to achieve a peacful settlement without resorting to using massed artillery and armour, RAF fighter-bombers to pulverise civillians; it's what real democracies do.

 

[Phoenall]

Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?

Well, THAT is an interesting question. You are suggesting that it is possible, not just for Israel, but for every nation in the world, to conduct warfare such that no civilians are killed and that all targeting is precise and takes out only the military objective - whether it be a hostile enemy, a munitions store, a base of operations, a tunnel, etc -- even if those military objectives are placed in close proximity to civilians. Wow. That is a tall order. Do you really think that is currently possible? Would you hold all nations to that same standard? If we were to hold all nations to that same standard, should the nation which has been most successful at achieving this high standard not be held in esteem for achieving it?

We are. We've had 30+ years of shootings, bombing, rocket and mortar attacks against both civillian and military targets, and we never once carpet bombed Belfast, Crossmaglen, Lisburn, Ballymena, Londonderry or anwhere else the PIRA operated. Almost 4000 dead and ten times that amount wounded or injured and we still managed to achieve a peacful settlement without resorting to using massed artillery and armour, RAF fighter-bombers to pulverise civillians; it's what real democracies do.[/QUOTE]






Chalk and cheese, as the IRA did not target children in the UK with illegal weapons. If they had then you can bet that the British government would have evacuated the protestants and then carpet bombed these areas. A lot of the bloodshed in N.I. went unreported, and people never heard about the ears collected by certain British squaddies or the IRA murderers found in the sewers

 

[Shusha]

We are. We've had 30+ years of shootings, bombing, rocket and mortar attacks against both civillian and military targets, and we never once carpet bombed Belfast, Crossmaglen, Lisburn, Ballymena, Londonderry or anwhere else the PIRA operated. Almost 4000 dead and ten times that amount wounded or injured and we still managed to achieve a peacful settlement without resorting to using massed artillery and armour, RAF fighter-bombers to pulverise civillians; it's what real democracies do.

I will admit that the IRA is not my area of expertise. So, please explain to me how you see this as being relevant or equivalent to the conflict in Gaza. In particular, please explain which specific counter-terrorist strategies the British use to effectively control, eliminate or mitigate harm from terrorism and how you would apply that to Israel.

For example, if you see police action and arresting of suspected terrorists as one of the techniques used by the British, how would you apply that to Israel? Would you suggest Israel maintain a police presence in Gaza? And if so, do you see that as problematic in terms of peacefully resolving the conflict?

For example, if you see economic restraints as viable and successful counter measure, how would you apply that to Israel? How would that improve the situation?

 

[Shusha]

Challenger

I've been reading a thesis which attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of various counter-terrorist measures, using the IRA and the Troubles as examples. Interesting reading. The author contends there are three ways to effectively counter terrorism:

1. Address the terrorists motivations as well as their capabilities
2. Create a wedge between extremists and moderates, creating positive incentives for the moderates to cease violence
3. Address the underlying issues of the people the terrorists propose to represent

The problem I see with the Israel/Arab Muslim Palestine conflict is with the third aspect. The underlying issue is that the Arab Muslim Palestinians (particularly those in Gaza) utterly reject any Jewish sovereignty on any of the territory. Its a zero sum -- us or them -- game for them. Clearly, this can not be "addressed" by Israel as it demands the destruction of any sort of Jewish self-determination or sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

I can not convince you, a British subject with no "dog" in the fight, to support a Jewish sovereign nation -- how are we (the Jewish people) to convince the Arab Muslim Palestinians to so radically change their entrenched ideology, especially when it is based not just in politics but deeply rooted in the religious faith?

Thus, we are, at the moment, "stuck" with having to address the terrorists capabilities. And possibly to create some positive incentives for moderates in Gaza, though I'm not convinced there is enough of those to turn the tides.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am often reminded that:

"As long as a society is divided, security sector reform can never achieve its main objective, which is to
provide security and justice for all. "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Towards Palestinian National Recognition
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © . . . .Ramallah and Geneva, Second Edition 2011
​

I always thought that the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) was a little too optimistic when they wrote that. They imply, by using the term of "society," that the Israelis and Arab Palestinians are "one" (the same people), just of a different mind. I tend to think the entire Middle East as an organism, infected with a virus. As Erin Daly (Widener University Delaware Law School) and Jeremy Sarkin (Professor of Law at the University of South Africa) once wrote:

“Reconciliation is the soil in which democracy takes root. Democracy can thrive only where the disparate factions in society have chosen to be governed in common. Democracy requires that the disappointed minority accede to the will of the majority – a concession that can happen only if the minority and the majority are sufficiently reconciled that they accept each other’s presence in the polity and the content of each other’s choices as legitimate, even if they don’t agree with them.”

“Societies that produce despots are polarized ones in which enough members are disaffected that they are willing to turn against, or support, a regime that turns against their fellow citizens. If reconciliation is going to have a deterrent effect it must be reconciliation among the people, not just between the leaders. (…) Despotism will be deterred when the people will have enough connection to one another that they will not allow a despot to divide them; when the people have enough respect for human rights that they will not tolerate abusive means even to achieve ends that they might otherwise like; when they are sufficiently invested in their communities and in their nations that they ask questions and demand accountability from their leaders.”
​

The Arab-Palestinian people have not yet achieved enough connection with the Israelis that they will not allow a despot to divide them. Instead, as the Arab-Palestinians continue a level of belligerents that threaten the peace and security of Israel, the longer it will take for the Arab-Palestinian to develop a basic foundation on which they can "stand alone" (Article 22 Criteria).

(COMMENT)
Look, you just don't understand the criteria. You make it up so as to include you Palestine.

No, I include Palestine because it is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun. It is what it is what it is. The sky is blue and Palestine is ruled by "Israel."

(COMMENT)

Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk. As you know, Article 33(1) plays a major rule in the "reconciliation" process when settling disputes between peacefully using the generally recognized international adjudication process. But some of these processes, like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), are cut short because Article 92 stipulates that the ICJ may only issue binding rulings in disputes between states.

Ever since the Declaration of 1988, the international community had debated the contention of Palestinian Statehood; on both the political level and on the application of law level. The fact that the UN has only granted accord to Palestine "non-member observer" State status (A/RES/67/19); as opposed fully membership endorsement. BUT there is a rub (friction) found in the Resolution.

"Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;"

In fact, upon close examination of the Resolution (on the Status of Palestine), it does not say that there actually exists a "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;" BUT only "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence" on that territory.

I suppose that the very first thing that should be determined is whether or not the State of Palestine has actually emerged as having a state population, state territory, effective government.

The formation of a new State is, as will be remembered from former statements, a matter of fact and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that such new State becomes subject to International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State's territory is recognized as the territory of a subject of International Law, and it matters not how this territory is acquired before the recognition. I Hence also, the acquisition of territory by a new State was not regarded as a mode of acquisition of territory in international law, though revolt was a method of losing territory: 'Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to which no mode of acquisition corresponds.'
SOURCE: Page 99, IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Yes, that is an interesting opinion. If statehood is a "matter of fact and not of law," THEN could you be correct? And does that have an implication on whether or not the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is actually a state "in fact?"

IF --- the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" cannot exercise the powers of government because of the control exerted by the Israelis over the territory, THEN --- the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is not a state and therefore cannot enter into treaties. Therefore have no case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice.

IF --- the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" have created a state (in fact) then it has exercised "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967," as reaffirmed by the General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19); THEN --- again have not validity in the complaint the Israel prevents independence and self-government.

You will also notice a peculiar remark in :

Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,

AND​

Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

Who actually is "recognized" by whom as the government --- reaffirmed --- representing the people of Israel in 2012. If there is a struggle within the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" --- who is it with? It was the PLO that declared independence for the Palestinian People --- creating the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967." If the PLO recognized as the representative to the UN in 2012, remaining so continuously to this day, then what is the relationship of the people to the PLO? Who "is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun?"

There are lots of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a ridiculous argument.

• Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

(COMMENT)

• Where does statehood or sovereignty require the status of an "indigenous" "permanent population?"
• The Allied powers, through the Mandate, facilitated immigration and citizenship to all Jewish People willing to establish a Jewish National Home.
• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

(COMMENT)

Israel was initially identified as the Jewish State by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1947 Recommendations to the General Assembly. The outline for the partition was adopted. On the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power, the Provisional Government Declared Independence. However, the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee attempted to overthrow the government of Israel by invading the former Mandate territory. Today, while the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt to argue on a theoretical basis that Israel has no borders, in fact, there is ample physical evidence on the ground of a exclusive authority over the territory bounded by a recognized demarcation.

NOTE: State of Palestine, even the 1988 State of Palestine, has no exclusively controlled territory.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

Actually the Jewish Agency was conceptualized by the Allied Powers, and required by the Allied Powers to be recognized by Zionist Organization. (The Jewish Agency was not created and inserted into to the Mandate by the WZO.) Israel is a parliamentary democracy. However, there is no requirement for the State to derive its legitimacy from the people. Saudi Arabia (as an example) is a Monarchy, its legitimacy is passed on generationally by blood.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No... The Arab Palestinians have not exercised such control that was necessary to establish peace and security.

How many times have you heard the Pro-Arab Palestinians say something derogatory about the Jewish People, or vindictive and uncomplimentary about the Israeli -- or commit a violent and/or destructive act -- justify it by saying the Israelis had 'made' the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) mad?
​

The HoAP are forever attempting to pursue some hostile agenda or action, using the excuse that the Israelis are preventing them achieving their "rights." The perpetual victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a ridiculous argument.

• Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

(COMMENT)

• Where does statehood or sovereignty require the status of an "indigenous" "permanent population?"
• The Allied powers, through the Mandate, facilitated immigration and citizenship to all Jewish People willing to establish a Jewish National Home.
• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

(COMMENT)

Israel was initially identified as the Jewish State by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1947 Recommendations to the General Assembly. The outline for the partition was adopted. On the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power, the Provisional Government Declared Independence. However, the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee attempted to overthrow the government of Israel by invading the former Mandate territory. Today, while the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt to argue on a theoretical basis that Israel has no borders, in fact, there is ample physical evidence on the ground of a exclusive authority over the territory bounded by a recognized demarcation.

NOTE: State of Palestine, even the 1988 State of Palestine, has no exclusively controlled territory.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

Actually the Jewish Agency was conceptualized by the Allied Powers, and required by the Allied Powers to be recognized by Zionist Organization. (The Jewish Agency was not created and inserted into to the Mandate by the WZO.) Israel is a parliamentary democracy. However, there is no requirement for the State to derive its legitimacy from the people. Saudi Arabia (as an example) is a Monarchy, its legitimacy is passed on generationally by blood.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No... The Arab Palestinians have not exercised such control that was necessary to establish peace and security.

How many times have you heard the Pro-Arab Palestinians say something derogatory about the Jewish People, or vindictive and uncomplimentary about the Israeli -- or commit a violent and/or destructive act -- justify it by saying the Israelis had 'made' the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) mad?
​

The HoAP are forever attempting to pursue some hostile agenda or action, using the excuse that the Israelis are preventing them achieving their "rights." The perpetual victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.​

Indeed, the Declarative Theory along with the Theory of Popular Sovereignty are the dominant theories in contemporary international law.

Eighty or so Palestinian officials declared independence in 1948 from the Mandate that left in the preceding months. They declared independence on their own land, inside their own international borders, and in the name of the Palestinians who were Palestine's legal "permanent population." They had every right to declare independence. They were recognized as a state by five other states and many in the "East" and elsewhere still recognize Palestine as a state.

They could not exercise their rights because they were under occupation.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.​

Hold on there, Rocco, you are just saying that without thinking. Can the French declare statehood in Britain?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a ridiculous argument.

• Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​

​

And my claim is correct.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty (as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory"). Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

a ) a permanent population
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

(COMMENT)

• Where does statehood or sovereignty require the status of an "indigenous" "permanent population?"
• The Allied powers, through the Mandate, facilitated immigration and citizenship to all Jewish People willing to establish a Jewish National Home.
• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.

b ) a defined territory
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

(COMMENT)

Israel was initially identified as the Jewish State by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1947 Recommendations to the General Assembly. The outline for the partition was adopted. On the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power, the Provisional Government Declared Independence. However, the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee attempted to overthrow the government of Israel by invading the former Mandate territory. Today, while the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt to argue on a theoretical basis that Israel has no borders, in fact, there is ample physical evidence on the ground of a exclusive authority over the territory bounded by a recognized demarcation.

NOTE: State of Palestine, even the 1988 State of Palestine, has no exclusively controlled territory.

c ) government
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

(COMMENT)

Actually the Jewish Agency was conceptualized by the Allied Powers, and required by the Allied Powers to be recognized by Zionist Organization. (The Jewish Agency was not created and inserted into to the Mandate by the WZO.) Israel is a parliamentary democracy. However, there is no requirement for the State to derive its legitimacy from the people. Saudi Arabia (as an example) is a Monarchy, its legitimacy is passed on generationally by blood.

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No... The Arab Palestinians have not exercised such control that was necessary to establish peace and security.

How many times have you heard the Pro-Arab Palestinians say something derogatory about the Jewish People, or vindictive and uncomplimentary about the Israeli -- or commit a violent and/or destructive act -- justify it by saying the Israelis had 'made' the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) mad?
​

The HoAP are forever attempting to pursue some hostile agenda or action, using the excuse that the Israelis are preventing them achieving their "rights." The perpetual victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm glad you agree.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

Hold on there, Rocco, you are just saying that without thinking. Can the French declare statehood in Britain?

(COMMENT)

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory before the Arabs Palestinian, then the All Palestine Government claim does not cover the territory to which the Israeli exercised self-determination.

• This entire idea that Israel is inside the former territory under Mandate, and therefore is somehow corrupted, is bogus. The former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was not sovereign territory under the authority of exclusive jurisdiction of any ArabPalestinian Authority.

• The All Palestine Government had no defined territory, as it had no exclusive jurisdiction of any former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.
​

This is all a long-standing attempt by Arab Palestinians to try and establish some prior claim over the territory and to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People who followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence valid at the time of the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm glad you agree.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.

Hold on there, Rocco, you are just saying that without thinking. Can the French declare statehood in Britain?

(COMMENT)

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory before the Arabs Palestinian, then the All Palestine Government claim does not cover the territory to which the Israeli exercised self-determination.

• This entire idea that Israel is inside the former territory under Mandate, and therefore is somehow corrupted, is bogus. The former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was not sovereign territory under the authority of exclusive jurisdiction of any ArabPalestinian Authority.

• The All Palestine Government had no defined territory, as it had no exclusive jurisdiction of any former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.
​

This is all a long-standing attempt by Arab Palestinians to try and establish some prior claim over the territory and to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People who followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence valid at the time of the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​

Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.