Gaza army

[Challenger]

Bleipriester, Roudy, et al,

As a coherent political policy concerning Palestine (the 1988 State of), Israel does not have a real firm future objective.

While the various political parties have their individual agendas, and positions, a collectively Israeli Foreign Policy really has not been formulated.

(COMMENT)

The Israelis agree on the need to survive the long standing Arab Palestinian objective to evict the Jewish State. But much beyond that, the Israelis still are debating the future of their state and how it will develop regional relations.

The Arab Palestinians have formulated a long-term foreign policy based on the re-acquisition of the territory they believe is "their territory" as outlined by the Palestine Order in Council; within the boundaries determined by the Principal Allied Powers on the surrender of the Ottoman Empire. This has not changed substantially since 1948. And this is the contention the Israelis are still dealing with today.

As of yet, there is no reasonable expectation that any agreement made today with the Arab Palestinian will be honored for any length of time. The past history and behaviors of the Arab Palestinian has demonstrated that any agreed upon peace will be short term until the Arab Palestinians as mustered enough military might and political support to make another act of aggression to (in their eyes) liberate the territorial boundaries they consider their sovereign right; even though they have nothing that grants them that sovereign right.

The Arab Palestinians have made a solemn oath to continue the conflict until they liberate what they consider as Palestine. And until they abdicate that oath, they can be expected to be contained.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be.

...while it lasts.

It's lasted since its statehood was announced in 1948 and will continue to be a strong, prosperous democracy long after you're gone. Israel is here to stay.

....for now. The wheel of time and history moves on....

 

[Coyote]

Apparently, the West Bank is disputed.

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

And the Pal Islamic terrorists.

For all the flailing of your Pom Poms in support of Islamic fascism, your heroes occupying Gaza are no closer now to their hoped-for Jooooooo genocide than they were decades ago.

That's what I call "putting the had in Gee-had".

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

No need to flail your Pom Poms for the squatters and welfare cheats you admire.

The disputed territories are called "disputed" for reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

Only Israel calls them "disputed". That's kind of like the way North Korea calls itself The "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea. No other country agrees and neither does the Israeli High Court.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

If the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) supports the "al-Qassem Brigades," a designated terrorist organization, then --- by extension, HAMAS is a "state that supports terrorism."

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom

Nope, only the al-Qassem Brigades. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

Which is the military wing of Hamas. Ha ha. What a fool you are.

(COMMENT)

But the real issue is that HAMAS (by extension the Palestinians at large) do not recognize Israel's right to exist. And in the greater sense, have pledged to continue a struggle against the existence of Israel. That is, by any measure, a declaration of war which they have pursued since before 1948.

The only way that I can envision the Israelis backing away from the policy of containment is is the UN Security Council absolutely pledges to retaliate against the Palestinians in a militarily decisive manner should the Palestinians launch rockets and mortars, carryout insurgent attacks or acts of terrorism --- should the Israelis lift the blockade and withdraw from the Jordan Valley. If, in the absence of the UNSC to intervene in a 24 hour period to such hostile actions, that the UNSC and the GA pre-authorize a militarily decisive intervention by the IDF without restrictions and occupy the entirety of the State of Palestine; without prejudice towards Israel. Otherwise, all it does is invite the Palestinians to continue their hostile activities.

It would be absolutely ridiculous for the international community to demand that containment measures be lifted from a state that supports a number of different terrorist organizations and then stipulate that hostile efforts initiated by them go without enforcement measures already in place and that penalties to applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be.

...while it lasts.

It's lasted since its statehood was announced in 1948 and will continue to be a strong, prosperous democracy long after you're gone. Israel is here to stay.

....for now. The wheel of time and history moves on....

... and so does Islamic terrorism with people like you to promote it.

 

[Humanity]

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

And the Pal Islamic terrorists.

For all the flailing of your Pom Poms in support of Islamic fascism, your heroes occupying Gaza are no closer now to their hoped-for Jooooooo genocide than they were decades ago.

That's what I call "putting the had in Gee-had".

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

No need to flail your Pom Poms for the squatters and welfare cheats you admire.

The disputed territories are called "disputed" for reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

They are called "disputed" by ONE country... Israel...

For the rest of the planet it is "occupied".

Can you guess why ONLY Israel, as the occupiers, call it "disputed"?

It's like taking candy from a baby with some people hahahahaha

That's the same phony claim you made before which you couldn't support.

Links provided you Occupation Denier you!

As I said yesterday, if you don't want to be educated then thats your issue not mine!

I am not going to repost... AGAIN... Links that prove you are an idiot!

I don't need to prove you an idiot, you do that very well all by yourself!

 

[Challenger]

It is illegal to acquire territory by force. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.

Israel has placed itself into a bad situation.

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.

Who cares, it doesn't give European colonists that happen to follow Judaism the right to invade and colonise another people's land. I've no problem with Jewish people living anywhere in the world where their whim takes them so long as they live alongside the natives, learn their language, treat them as equals. Not dispossess them and oppress them in the name of some mythical holy book mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Roudy]

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be.

...while it lasts.

It's lasted since its statehood was announced in 1948 and will continue to be a strong, prosperous democracy long after you're gone. Israel is here to stay.

....for now. The wheel of time and history moves on....

Wow, that was deep Monte. I think "what goes up must come down"...how about that one? Ha ha ha.

 

[Hollie]

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.

Who cares, it doesn't give European colonists that happen to follow Judaism the right to invade and colonise another people's land. I've no problem with Jewish people living anywhere in the world where their whim takes them so long as they live alongside the natives, learn their language, treat them as equals. Not dispossess them and oppress them in the name of some mythical holy book mumbo-jumbo.

There was no colonization for people who had a historical connection to the land long before the invention of a fascist politico- religious ideology.

 

[Hollie]

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be.

...while it lasts.

It's lasted since its statehood was announced in 1948 and will continue to be a strong, prosperous democracy long after you're gone. Israel is here to stay.

....for now. The wheel of time and history moves on....

... and so does Islamic terrorism with people like you to promote it.

....and off she goes again, wild unsubstantiated accusations because she can't string an original argument together if it's not in the Hasbara script talking points...

Actually, they're statements of history which you are unable to refute, thus your pointless spam.

 

[Humanity]

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

No need to flail your Pom Poms for the squatters and welfare cheats you admire.

The disputed territories are called "disputed" for reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

They are called "disputed" by ONE country... Israel...

For the rest of the planet it is "occupied".

Can you guess why ONLY Israel, as the occupiers, call it "disputed"?

It's like taking candy from a baby with some people hahahahaha

That's the same phony claim you made before which you couldn't support.

Links provided you Occupation Denier you!

As I said yesterday, if you don't want to be educated then thats your issue not mine!

I am not going to repost... AGAIN... Links that prove you are an idiot!

I don't need to prove you an idiot, you do that very well all by yourself!

Such an angry islamist.

While your links were refuted, there's no need to let your self-hate be the cause of your juvenile name-calling.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So there WERE links then Hollie?

Refuted? How, when you didn't see them?

Name calling ? Then don't do it!

 

[Challenger]

et al,

If the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) supports the "al-Qassem Brigades," a designated terrorist organization, then --- by extension, HAMAS is a "state that supports terrorism."

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom

Nope, only the al-Qassem Brigades. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

Which is the military wing of Hamas. Ha ha. What a fool you are.

(COMMENT)

But the real issue is that HAMAS (by extension the Palestinians at large) do not recognize Israel's right to exist. And in the greater sense, have pledged to continue a struggle against the existence of Israel. That is, by any measure, a declaration of war which they have pursued since before 1948.

The only way that I can envision the Israelis backing away from the policy of containment is is the UN Security Council absolutely pledges to retaliate against the Palestinians in a militarily decisive manner should the Palestinians launch rockets and mortars, carryout insurgent attacks or acts of terrorism --- should the Israelis lift the blockade and withdraw from the Jordan Valley. If, in the absence of the UNSC to intervene in a 24 hour period to such hostile actions, that the UNSC and the GA pre-authorize a militarily decisive intervention by the IDF without restrictions and occupy the entirety of the State of Palestine; without prejudice towards Israel. Otherwise, all it does is invite the Palestinians to continue their hostile activities.

It would be absolutely ridiculous for the international community to demand that containment measures be lifted from a state that supports a number of different terrorist organizations and then stipulate that hostile efforts initiated by them go without enforcement measures already in place and that penalties to applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

But the real issue is that HAMAS (by extension the Palestinians at large) do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Always wanted to ask this question, "why should they, Zionist Israel does not recognise Palestine?"

What particular right does Israel have to exist over and above any other state in the world? In terms of armed conflict when the war is over both sides make peace and ultimately mutually recognise each other. Zionist Israel is the only country that demands recognition as a pre-requisite to any peace negotiation. Cart before the horse situation, methinks.

 

[Challenger]

If the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) supports the "al-Qassem Brigades," a designated terrorist organization, then --- by extension, HAMAS is a "state that supports terrorism."

The British government disagrees with you. Oh, and Hamas is not a state, it's a political party. We've had 30 years of home grown terrorism and we learned to make distinctions like these. We now have peace, the Zionists, not so much....

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe. I could say the same about your premise: That it is not an international conflict.

How is the term "Armed Conflict" defined in international humanitarian law?
17-03-2008
Opinion paper - definition of "international armed conflict" and "non-international armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have entrusted the ICRC, through the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, " to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof " Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).. It is on this basis that the ICRC takes this opportunity to present the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of " international armed conflict " and " non-international armed conflict " under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
  
  
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.
​

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.

In order to be a "High Contracting Party" to the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, or the Rome Statutes, the "party" must be a state and have the capacity to enter into the agreement. Both the State of Israel (1948) and the State of Palestine (1988) have entered into treaties and agreements under the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES:

PART II. CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES
SECTION 1. CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Article 6 Capacity of States to Conclude Treaties: Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
​

You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict.

(REFENRENCES)

• Israel Declaration of Independence
• Israeli Declaration to Append the Application to the United Nations
• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)
• Favorable Recommendation of the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, by the UN Security Council
• 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
• Peace Treaty between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
• Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel

(COMMENT)

I can demonstrate quite easily that Israel is a "state:"

• Established under its right to self-determination under the UN guidance proved in the Steps Preparatory to Independence found in General Assembly 181(II).
• Wherein the UN made an official and world-wide public press announcement that the GA/RES/181(II) was implemented.
• Where by the State of Israel made application for FULL membership to the UN.
• Where by the UN Security Council recommended the admission to the UN.
• Where by the General Assembly accepted the State of Israel as a FULL member.

So I only interpret that you are going to claim that the State of Israel was (somehow) illegal recognized by the UN membership and improperly recommended and forwarded by the Security Council. And I can only further imagine that where the UN recognition 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; is flawed.

So, in order for the argument to be made that the conflict is not an international nature, there would be no State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Is that your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.​

Indeed.

The UN has no authority:
To create or disband states.
To transfer land from one people to another.
To create or change borders.

The UN can only give states political recognition. This has everything to do with politics and has nothing to do with law.

Only the people of a defined territory have the right to declare statehood inside their defined territory.

So we must move on from there.

 

[Challenger]

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.

Who cares, it doesn't give European colonists that happen to follow Judaism the right to invade and colonise another people's land. I've no problem with Jewish people living anywhere in the world where their whim takes them so long as they live alongside the natives, learn their language, treat them as equals. Not dispossess them and oppress them in the name of some mythical holy book mumbo-jumbo.

There was no colonization for people who had a historical connection to the land long before the invention of a fascist politico- religious ideology.

Yeah, right, whatever. So there's no chance of you reading any of the books I've suggested? Two of them were by a Jewish professor, who comprehensively demolishes the historical connection of European colonists with Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.

Who cares, it doesn't give European colonists that happen to follow Judaism the right to invade and colonise another people's land. I've no problem with Jewish people living anywhere in the world where their whim takes them so long as they live alongside the natives, learn their language, treat them as equals. Not dispossess them and oppress them in the name of some mythical holy book mumbo-jumbo.

There was no colonization for people who had a historical connection to the land long before the invention of a fascist politico- religious ideology.

Yeah, right, whatever. So there's no chance of you reading any of the books I've suggested? Two of them were by a Jewish professor, who comprehensively demolishes the historical connection of European colonists with Palestine.

Exactly right. Judaism has a connection to the land that far precedes the abomination of Islamic ideology.

I would suggest that you learn some history as you're unwilling to separate your islamist fascist proclivities from contingent history.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

I thought HAMAS was part of the Unity Government?

If the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) supports the "al-Qassem Brigades," a designated terrorist organization, then --- by extension, HAMAS is a "state that supports terrorism."

The British government disagrees with you. Oh, and Hamas is not a state, it's a political party. We've had 30 years of home grown terrorism and we learned to make distinctions like these. We now have peace, the Zionists, not so much....

(COMMENT)

So if it is only a party, how does it have the authority to have a government military wing and claim control over the Gaza Strip?

So I guess, since it is not an element of government, then any action it takes exercising the use of force is illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not claim the UN created anything. I stated it "recognized" Israel as a state and that the body of "states" that make-up the General Assembly recognized Israel as a state. What makes Israel a state, as I said was that it declared Independence (exercising the right of self-determination) under the criteria and a process that other "states" established as right and proper.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe. I could say the same about your premise: That it is not an international conflict.

How is the term "Armed Conflict" defined in international humanitarian law?
17-03-2008
Opinion paper - definition of "international armed conflict" and "non-international armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have entrusted the ICRC, through the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, " to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof " Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).. It is on this basis that the ICRC takes this opportunity to present the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of " international armed conflict " and " non-international armed conflict " under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
  
  
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.
​

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.

In order to be a "High Contracting Party" to the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, or the Rome Statutes, the "party" must be a state and have the capacity to enter into the agreement. Both the State of Israel (1948) and the State of Palestine (1988) have entered into treaties and agreements under the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES:

PART II. CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES
SECTION 1. CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Article 6 Capacity of States to Conclude Treaties: Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
​

You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict.

(REFENRENCES)

• Israel Declaration of Independence
• Israeli Declaration to Append the Application to the United Nations
• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)
• Favorable Recommendation of the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, by the UN Security Council
• 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
• Peace Treaty between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
• Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel

(COMMENT)

I can demonstrate quite easily that Israel is a "state:"

• Established under its right to self-determination under the UN guidance proved in the Steps Preparatory to Independence found in General Assembly 181(II).
• Wherein the UN made an official and world-wide public press announcement that the GA/RES/181(II) was implemented.
• Where by the State of Israel made application for FULL membership to the UN.
• Where by the UN Security Council recommended the admission to the UN.
• Where by the General Assembly accepted the State of Israel as a FULL member.

So I only interpret that you are going to claim that the State of Israel was (somehow) illegal recognized by the UN membership and improperly recommended and forwarded by the Security Council. And I can only further imagine that where the UN recognition 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; is flawed.

So, in order for the argument to be made that the conflict is not an international nature, there would be no State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Is that your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.​

Indeed.

The UN has no authority:
To create or disband states.
To transfer land from one people to another.
To create or change borders.

The UN can only give states political recognition. This has everything to do with politics and has nothing to do with law.

Only the people of a defined territory have the right to declare statehood inside their defined territory.

So we must move on from there.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe I used the term "authority." I don't believe I used the terms "create" --- "transfer" --- "disband." I believe the UN used the term "border" in their recognition of Palestine in 2012 (not me)!!! I agree with you. The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else. It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).

You are making an assumption. You are stipulating that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination. The People had the Right of Self-determination, and established their territory. It is outlined by sovereign control for which the Arab Palestinian people cannot challenge, and that all states in every direction understand that Israel exercised their sovereign authority over.

I believe it is the Palestinians that are whining about sovereignty and their territorial integrity. The Palestinian people have never really established sovereign territorial control over any territory with a coherent government. While HAMAS maintains they have control over the Gaza Strip, a completely different group of Palestinians have control over Area "A" and parts of Area "B" --- but not any part of Area "C."

Don't try to rephrase my comment --- trying to make an improper point.

By the time the Palestinians quite messing around, they will have nothing left to call their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.

Who cares, it doesn't give European colonists that happen to follow Judaism the right to invade and colonise another people's land. I've no problem with Jewish people living anywhere in the world where their whim takes them so long as they live alongside the natives, learn their language, treat them as equals. Not dispossess them and oppress them in the name of some mythical holy book mumbo-jumbo.

Monte stops trolling and challenger his sock, takes over with the usual bullshit about colonialists. Is challenger going to start repetitively posting the same mutilated, irrelevant, and misrepresented documents as MonkeyNazi? We can't wait.

 

[Humanity]

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.

Who cares, it doesn't give European colonists that happen to follow Judaism the right to invade and colonise another people's land. I've no problem with Jewish people living anywhere in the world where their whim takes them so long as they live alongside the natives, learn their language, treat them as equals. Not dispossess them and oppress them in the name of some mythical holy book mumbo-jumbo.

Monte stops trolling and challenger his sock, takes over with the usual bullshit about colonialists. Is challenger going to start repetitively posting the same mutilated, irrelevant, and misrepresented documents as MonkeyNazi? We can't wait.

Because those active zionuts here would NEVER think about repetitively posting the same mutilated, irrelevant, and misrepresented documents... Copy and Paste Bandits!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not claim the UN created anything. I stated it "recognized" Israel as a state and that the body of "states" that make-up the General Assembly recognized Israel as a state. What makes Israel a state, as I said was that it declared Independence (exercising the right of self-determination) under the criteria and a process that other "states" established as right and proper.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe. I could say the same about your premise: That it is not an international conflict.

How is the term "Armed Conflict" defined in international humanitarian law?
17-03-2008
Opinion paper - definition of "international armed conflict" and "non-international armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have entrusted the ICRC, through the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, " to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof " Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).. It is on this basis that the ICRC takes this opportunity to present the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of " international armed conflict " and " non-international armed conflict " under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
  
  
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.
​

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.

In order to be a "High Contracting Party" to the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, or the Rome Statutes, the "party" must be a state and have the capacity to enter into the agreement. Both the State of Israel (1948) and the State of Palestine (1988) have entered into treaties and agreements under the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES:

PART II. CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES
SECTION 1. CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Article 6 Capacity of States to Conclude Treaties: Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
​

You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict.

(REFENRENCES)

• Israel Declaration of Independence
• Israeli Declaration to Append the Application to the United Nations
• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)
• Favorable Recommendation of the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, by the UN Security Council
• 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
• Peace Treaty between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
• Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel

(COMMENT)

I can demonstrate quite easily that Israel is a "state:"

• Established under its right to self-determination under the UN guidance proved in the Steps Preparatory to Independence found in General Assembly 181(II).
• Wherein the UN made an official and world-wide public press announcement that the GA/RES/181(II) was implemented.
• Where by the State of Israel made application for FULL membership to the UN.
• Where by the UN Security Council recommended the admission to the UN.
• Where by the General Assembly accepted the State of Israel as a FULL member.

So I only interpret that you are going to claim that the State of Israel was (somehow) illegal recognized by the UN membership and improperly recommended and forwarded by the Security Council. And I can only further imagine that where the UN recognition 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; is flawed.

So, in order for the argument to be made that the conflict is not an international nature, there would be no State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Is that your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.​

Indeed.

The UN has no authority:
To create or disband states.
To transfer land from one people to another.
To create or change borders.

The UN can only give states political recognition. This has everything to do with politics and has nothing to do with law.

Only the people of a defined territory have the right to declare statehood inside their defined territory.

So we must move on from there.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe I used the term "authority." I don't believe I used the terms "create" --- "transfer" --- "disband." I believe the UN used the term "border" in their recognition of Palestine in 2012 (not me)!!! I agree with you. The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else. It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).

You are making an assumption. You are stipulating that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination. The People had the Right of Self-determination, and established their territory. It is outlined by sovereign control for which the Arab Palestinian people cannot challenge, and that all states in every direction understand that Israel exercised their sovereign authority over.

I believe it is the Palestinians that are whining about sovereignty and their territorial integrity. The Palestinian people have never really established sovereign territorial control over any territory with a coherent government. While HAMAS maintains they have control over the Gaza Strip, a completely different group of Palestinians have control over Area "A" and parts of Area "B" --- but not any part of Area "C."

Don't try to rephrase my comment --- trying to make an improper point.

By the time the Palestinians quite messing around, they will have nothing left to call their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else.​

Military control (occupation) is quite different than the right to sovereignty.

That is why it is says the the people have the right to self determination without external interference.

You always miss that point. Always, always, always!