Does international law require Israel to vacate the disputed territories

[P F Tinmore]

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

I do think this is the root cause of the conflict. Its an ideological problem in the mindset of the Arab Muslims (and obviously some of their supporters). Any compromise, anything less than getting everything, any sharing, any mutual respect and acknowledgement is surrender. And Arab Muslims don't surrender.

Why should it be the Palestinians who surrender in their own country?

 

[Boston1]

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

I do think this is the root cause of the conflict. Its an ideological problem in the mindset of the Arab Muslims (and obviously some of their supporters). Any compromise, anything less than getting everything, any sharing, any mutual respect and acknowledgement is surrender. And Arab Muslims don't surrender.

Why should it be the Palestinians who surrender in their own country?

You are a laugh a minute

Singing and dancing around the issue but funny none the less.

The disputed territories were abandoned by Jordan and were never recognized as Jordanian anyway. The Israeli's haven't annexed the area YET so at best they are unincorporated Israel, but no matter how you slice it, NOT A NATION.

I take it after who knows how many attempts to distract from the conversation and completely refusing to provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims that you have conceded the issue and would now prefer to discuss the Arab nations that did surrender vs the belligerents that remain within the disputed territories ?

 

[montelatici]

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

I do think this is the root cause of the conflict. Its an ideological problem in the mindset of the Arab Muslims (and obviously some of their supporters). Any compromise, anything less than getting everything, any sharing, any mutual respect and acknowledgement is surrender. And Arab Muslims don't surrender.

Firstly, the Palestinians are Christians as well as Muslims and the Christians lost as much or more in terms of land and capital to the colonists than the Muslims did, being the wealthiest of the Palestinians.

It is the Jews that are not willing to compromise after invading and colonizing most of the land the Palestinians lived on.

 

[Boston1]

Enough of the thread drift.

If you cannot provide a specific reference to international law that directly supports the view that Israel is somehow obligated to leave the disputed territories then the revisionists have failed and there is no occupation.

 

[montelatici]

Enough of the thread drift.

If you cannot provide a specific reference to international law that directly supports the view that Israel is somehow obligated to leave the disputed territories then the revisionists have failed and there is no occupation.

Ok. There is no occupation. Now what?

 

[Boston1]

Enough of the thread drift.

If you cannot provide a specific reference to international law that directly supports the view that Israel is somehow obligated to leave the disputed territories then the revisionists have failed and there is no occupation.

Ok. There is no occupation. Now what?

Excellent now we are getting somewhere ;--)

Once we can agree that the area is not being occupied then we can move onto other aspects of this issue

For instance are the Israeli's obligated to allow free passage to belligerents being held in detention.

I'll start a new thread tho so as to give any of our revisionists all the time in the world to actually provide so much as one single international law that is applicable to this particular instance.

 

[montelatici]

Enough of the thread drift.

If you cannot provide a specific reference to international law that directly supports the view that Israel is somehow obligated to leave the disputed territories then the revisionists have failed and there is no occupation.

Ok. There is no occupation. Now what?

Excellent now we are getting somewhere ;--)

Once we can agree that the area is not being occupied then we can move onto other aspects of this issue

For instance are the Israeli's obligated to allow free passage to belligerents being held in detention.

I'll start a new thread tho so as to give any of our revisionists all the time in the world to actually provide so much as one single international law that is applicable to this particular instance.

Actually, we have proven that the territories are occupied via several vehicles, however, we want entertainment, so go bang your mouse and start another Hasbara thread.

 

[Boston1]

Once again you are unable to address the challenge to provide any proof of your revisionist claims and instead, apparently, that last is the best you can do.

No worries, I'm sure the readers didn't miss that you failed at every turn to provide a single instance of international law that supports your claim that Israel is in violation of international law.

Which is why I fought so hard to keep the thread on track.

Your racist claims are unfounded in reality

 

[montelatici]

Once again you are unable to address the challenge to provide any proof of your revisionist claims and instead, apparently, that last is the best you can do.

No worries, I'm sure the readers didn't miss that you failed at every turn to provide a single instance of international law that supports your claim that Israel is in violation of international law.

Which is why I fought so hard to keep the thread on track.

Your racist claims are unfounded in reality

In fact, all your claims have been debunked. The references to official archival source documentation have proven that the territories are legally under belligerent occupation. Calling others racist because they cite international law is silly. But carry on trolling.

 

[Hollie]

Once again you are unable to address the challenge to provide any proof of your revisionist claims and instead, apparently, that last is the best you can do.

No worries, I'm sure the readers didn't miss that you failed at every turn to provide a single instance of international law that supports your claim that Israel is in violation of international law.

Which is why I fought so hard to keep the thread on track.

Your racist claims are unfounded in reality

In fact, all your claims have been debunked. The references to official archival source documentation have proven that the territories are legally under belligerent occupation. Calling others racist because they cite international law is silly. But carry on trolling.

Relying on your usual tactic of bluster and name-calling in the hopes of buttressing your failed arguments is poor cricket, Laddie.

Your "archival and source documents" are suspiciously absent in terns af addressing the thread topic.

Are you thinking that more monkey business will hide your failure?

 

[Boston1]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

 

[abu afak]

My contention is that there is no element of international law that applies to the palestinians either having a "legal right" to the disputed territories. I would further contend that any reference to land acquired by force of arms is in specific reference to acts of aggression. Since all of the Arabs wars against Israel have been acts of aggression its the Arabs who are in fact occupying land they aquired through force of arms. VS Israel who is maintaining a defensive barrier in the exact place specified in the last agreed upon treaty. Ergo Israel is not occupying land illegally.
I'd invite anyone who'd like to list international statutes which specifically state otherwise.

First, thanks for your use of the more legally correct 'Disputed", rather than "occupied".
ie
ie, From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories," by Dore Gold

"International law" is fairly irrelevant.
International Law is just what the anti-Israel UN Votes this Decade/Year/Week.
The question really is, is there Precedent for either position, or agreements between the parties that ARE actually relevent and Fair.

The only mutually agreed on document is 1967's UN Resolution 242.
That Resolution fully foresaw Israel taking a small [strategic] Buffer from the lines extant at the beginning of the War.
I did a string on Resolution 242 here 5 years ago
It still stands.
Resolution 242: It does NOT mean withdrawal to 1967 lines | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Small excerpt

The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.
The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.'​

I used to invoke those Facts at Israel's opponents, (15 years of Pro-Israel posting and still am to this day)
but now it seems Israel is taking it all, Contrary to the strategic Buffer that neutrals and pro-Israelers foresaw as fair.

Of course, one Could argue that circumstance has changed. The Arab world has exploded, Hamas came to power in 2005, etc. etc.

But as far as Real legal precedent, that's about it IMO.

 

[montelatici]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

You are the forum's liar par excellence. International Law references galore have been provided. But, there is no need to refer to International Law, the determinations (several) of the Israeli Supreme Court are sufficient. For example:

"... the belligerent occupation of the area by Israel has special characteristics, the main one being the period of time of the occupation which demands fitting the laws to reality on the ground ...’.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)


פסק-דין בתיק בג"ץ 2164/09

 

[Indeependent]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

You are the forum's liar par excellence. International Law references galore have been provided. But, there is no need to refer to International Law, the determinations (several) of the Israeli Supreme Court are sufficient. For example:

"... the belligerent occupation of the area by Israel has special characteristics, the main one being the period of time of the occupation which demands fitting the laws to reality on the ground ...’.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)


פסק-דין בתיק בג"ץ 2164/09

Wow! I didn't know you read Hebrew!
NOW I've convinced that all the bullshit you post is...well, bullshit.
By, the way, the scare English at the bottom does not state a conclusion.
BUT, if you look REAL close and set your resolution to 720x480, it says at the bottom that you're a lying donkey.

 

[montelatici]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

You are the forum's liar par excellence. International Law references galore have been provided. But, there is no need to refer to International Law, the determinations (several) of the Israeli Supreme Court are sufficient. For example:

"... the belligerent occupation of the area by Israel has special characteristics, the main one being the period of time of the occupation which demands fitting the laws to reality on the ground ...’.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)


פסק-דין בתיק בג"ץ 2164/09

Wow! I didn't know you read Hebrew!
NOW I've convinced that all the bullshit you post is...well, bullshit.
By, the way, the scare English at the bottom does not state a conclusion.
BUT, if you look REAL close and set your resolution to 720x480, it says at the bottom that you're a lying donkey.

It is para. 10 of the case. You can lie all you want. Facts are facts.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)

ICRC service

 

[Boston1]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

You are the forum's liar par excellence. International Law references galore have been provided. But, there is no need to refer to International Law, the determinations (several) of the Israeli Supreme Court are sufficient. For example:

"... the belligerent occupation of the area by Israel has special characteristics, the main one being the period of time of the occupation which demands fitting the laws to reality on the ground ...’.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)


פסק-דין בתיק בג"ץ 2164/09

LOL OK so by George we have an actual reference. Now to go see what it actually says vs what our local revisionists might think it says ;--)

One moment please ;--)

Ahahahahahahahahahaa
the reference has nothing whatsoever to do with the revisionists claim that Israel is illegally occupying palestinian land ;--)

So typical. Once again your reference has exactly nothing to do with either supporting your wild claims.

The first problem I see is that the Arab belligerents within the disputed territories do not enjoy the protections of statehood or the Geneva conventions regarding civilians due to the condition of war.

Since the UN failed to segregate combatants from refugees and since the Israeli's found it necessary to consider all remnant foreign colonists as a threat to state security the statutes of the IV Geneva convention regarding protected persons do not apply.

See, within the referenced text
Quote

"55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State,

End Quote

The palestinians do not enjoy statehood, therefor they are not subject to the protections afforded to a state

See also
from the referenced text

Quote
"The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country.
End Quote

Since the palestinians do not represent any country they do not enjoy the protections afforded to independent countries.

Also
From the referenced article

Quote

"The needs of any area, be it subject to military rule or another rule, tend to change, naturally, with the passage of time and the accompanying economic developments. As was specified above, the drafters of the articles did not deem it sufficient to define the duty as merely restoring the situation to its previous condition. The duration of existing military rule might affect the nature of such needs, and so the necessity of implementing adjustments and reorganization might increase the longer such a period lasts ... the time element is a factor that affects the space of powers, whether one considers the needs of the military or the needs of the Area, or when striking the balance between those two" (HCJ 69/81 Basil Abu-Ita vs. The Commander of the Judea and Samaria Area, 37(2) PD 197, 313 (1983)).

"Therefore, the powers of a military administration extend to the implementation of any necessary measures in order to ensure growth, change and development. Thus, a military administration may develop industry, commerce, agriculture, education, health, welfare and other elements regarding good governance, which are required in order to secure the changing needs of a population in an area held in belligerent occupation" (the Askaan case, p. 804).


End Quote

It would seem that an acknowledgment of martial law is accepted by the court.

So, what the hell was your point again ?

Looks to me like the court rules against the palestinians

Doesn't much matter as it all seems like just another distraction. Do you have any statutes within international law that support your claim that Israel is illegally occupying the disputed territories. Cause this case you mention is nothing more than a dispute over mining rights. ;--)

 

[Indeependent]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

You are the forum's liar par excellence. International Law references galore have been provided. But, there is no need to refer to International Law, the determinations (several) of the Israeli Supreme Court are sufficient. For example:

"... the belligerent occupation of the area by Israel has special characteristics, the main one being the period of time of the occupation which demands fitting the laws to reality on the ground ...’.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)


פסק-דין בתיק בג"ץ 2164/09

Wow! I didn't know you read Hebrew!
NOW I've convinced that all the bullshit you post is...well, bullshit.
By, the way, the scare English at the bottom does not state a conclusion.
BUT, if you look REAL close and set your resolution to 720x480, it says at the bottom that you're a lying donkey.

It is para. 10 of the case. You can lie all you want. Facts are facts.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)

ICRC service

OPINION, LIAR!!!!
LIAR!!!

 

[montelatici]

Want it in English? You Hasbara freak. The only way you people can defend the indefensible is denying fact.

"6. The Petition under discussion has been submitted by a public petitioner, and it urges the cessation of the long lasting activities of Israeli quarries operating in the Area, based on arguments regarding the safeguarding of the interests of the entire protected Palestinian population within the Area, which is being subjected to belligerent occupation.

"https://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/הכרעות דין/psak.pdf

 

[Indeependent]

Want it in English? You Hasbara freak. The only way you people can defend the indefensible is denying fact.

"6. The Petition under discussion has been submitted by a public petitioner, and it urges the cessation of the long lasting activities of Israeli quarries operating in the Area, based on arguments regarding the safeguarding of the interests of the entire protected Palestinian population within the Area, which is being subjected to belligerent occupation.

"https://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/הכרעות דין/psak.pdf

Yes, a$$hole, I read the parts in English...a$$hole.
Apparently you DIDN'T.
It's an OPINION.
Lying donkey.

 

[montelatici]

And so lying is your only response ?

The issue wasn't my claim it was yours, that Israel is somehow required by international law to vacate the disputed territories. You provided ZERO references to international law, no proof that Israel is a belligerent occupier and yes, your baseless assertions do appear racist.

So yeah.

Do you have a single statute within international law that supports your claims ?

You are the forum's liar par excellence. International Law references galore have been provided. But, there is no need to refer to International Law, the determinations (several) of the Israeli Supreme Court are sufficient. For example:

"... the belligerent occupation of the area by Israel has special characteristics, the main one being the period of time of the occupation which demands fitting the laws to reality on the ground ...’.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)


פסק-דין בתיק בג"ץ 2164/09

Wow! I didn't know you read Hebrew!
NOW I've convinced that all the bullshit you post is...well, bullshit.
By, the way, the scare English at the bottom does not state a conclusion.
BUT, if you look REAL close and set your resolution to 720x480, it says at the bottom that you're a lying donkey.

It is para. 10 of the case. You can lie all you want. Facts are facts.

HCJ 2164/09, Yesh Din v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al., Judgment, 26 December 2011 (hereafter Quarries case)

ICRC service

OPINION, LIAR!!!!
LIAR!!!

You can't handle the truth, can you. Now the Israeli Supreme Court is lying and the Israeli Supreme Court is merely advisory. What tools you two are. LOL