Hamas Leader Killed

[Coyote]

How so?

If a Palestinian kills an Israeli…what happens?

If an Israeli kills a Palestinian…what happens?

 

[Shusha]

Under military law there is no recognition of any of the basic rights every Israeli citizen takes for granted.

Rights such as? What rights do Israeli citizens in the undecided territories have that Palestinian citizens do not have?

 

[Coyote]

Again, legally and factually incorrect. Israel took no territory in war that she did not already have sovereign claim and legal entitlement to. At best, as argued above, it belonged to no one. Would you like me to walk you through all the treaties and customary law which supports Israel's legal claim to the entirety of the Mandate for Palestine territory?

UNGA resolution. Not binding in law.

The ICJ has neither been asked for, nor provided, an advisory opinion on the legal status of the territory commonly now referred to as "the occupied territories". So they haven't said anything.

Where in the partition plan was that territory indicated as part of Israel?

 

[Shusha]

Where in the partition plan was that territory indicated as part of Israel?

The partition plan was a UNGA recommendation, not legally binding, and entirely legally irrelevant.

 

[Coyote]

Rights such as? What rights do Israeli citizens in the undecided territories have that Palestinian citizens do not have?

Equality in the criminal justice system.

Under military law, a Palestinian accused of a security offense can be held without charge for up to 90 days without trial. Under Israeli civil law an Israeli can only be held 64 days. Trials for an Israeli under civil law must be completed within 9 months, for a Palestinian under military law it is 18 months and a judge can extend it in 6-month intervals. There are also discrepancies how Palestinians are actually treated under the laws and how Israeli citizens are. Despite the requirement that arrestees be interrogated in their own language and provided statements to sign, they typically aren’t. Children who are arrested are often interrogated without a parent or legal representative with them (in fact, it is almost impossible in many cases for a parent to get a permit to travel to where their child is being held.

 

[Shusha]

If a Palestinian kills an Israeli…what happens?

If an Israeli kills a Palestinian…what happens?

Depends. Is the perpetrator being detained and subjected to their own laws or to the laws of the enemy government?

Typically, under Palestinian law, a Palestinian committing murder on an Israeli is received as a hero and provided with a monthly stipend as reward.

Under Palestinian law, if an Israeli kills a Palestinian, well, typically the Israeli is lynched, or, if extraordinarily lucky, merely beaten just for being in the "wrong place". I don't know that there has ever been an example we could turn to of what would happen to an Israeli being detained under Palestinian law. But I would not be hopeful of the outcome.

Under Israeli law, a Palestinian committing murder on an Israeli receives a trial and, if found guilty after due process, receives a prison sentence.

Under Israeli law, an Israeli committing murder on a Palestinian receives a trial, and, if found guilty after due process, receives a prison sentence.

 

[Coyote]

The partition plan was a UNGA recommendation, not legally binding, and entirely legally irrelevant.

I disagree, it was more legally binding than the Balfour declaration which is often cited as proof that the entire territory belongs to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree, it was more legally binding than the Balfour declaration which is often cited as proof that the entire territory belongs to Israel.

You can "disagree" all you want, but that doesn't make UNGA recommendations legally binding.

The Balfour Declaration has no legal weight or relevance. But the Mandate for Palestine, which incorporated language similar to the Balfour Declaration, absolutely has legal effect.

 

[Coyote]

Depends. Is the perpetrator being detained and subjected to their own laws or to the laws of the enemy government?

Typically, under Palestinian law, a Palestinian committing murder on an Israeli is received as a hero and provided with a monthly stipend as reward.

Under Israeli law, a Palestinian who commits a crime against an Israeli has his home bulldozed and his family made homeless.

A settler who commits a crime on a Palestinian is protected by his village and the members of the IDF look the other way or are even complicit in the act. Members of parliament laude him as righteous. Not a single home gets bulldozed.

Under Palestinian law, if an Israeli kills a Palestinian, well, typically the Israeli is lynched, or, if extraordinarily lucky, merely beaten just for being in the "wrong place". I don't know that there has ever been an example we could turn to of what would happen to an Israeli being detained under Palestinian law. But I would not be hopeful of the outcome.

I would agree with you on what would happen to an Israeli under Palestinian law.

However, under “Israeli law”, if a Palestinian kills an Israeli, settlers lynch him, firebomb his home, burn his village. Few ever get arrested or convicted. The IDF conducts a raid with mass detentions until the killer is caught. Not so with Israelis.

What happens if a Palestinian is in the “wrong place”? 4 Arab-Israeli women with a two yr old a child were violently attacked and injured because they were driving a car without an Israeli plate “because they could have been spies”. An MK even defended it.

Under Israeli law, a Palestinian committing murder on an Israeli receives a trial and, if found guilty after due process, receives a prison sentence.

That is questionable.

Under Israeli law, an Israeli committing murder on a Palestinian receives a trial, and, if found guilty after due process, receives a prison sentence.

That is questionable.

Does his home get bulldozed?

The IDF was given approval to shoot stone throwers in the legs.

Have any Israeli stone throwers got shot?
How about Palestinian stone throwers?
How many get arrested?

 

[Coyote]

You can "disagree" all you want, but that doesn't make UNGA recommendations legally binding.

The Balfour Declaration has no legal weight or relevance. But the Mandate for Palestine, which incorporated language similar to the Balfour Declaration, absolutely has legal effect.

That is arguable (which is probably why it remains an unresolved mess.

I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of international law (typically that is you, Rocco and Tinmore) but I can find arguments that contradict the “absolutely” part of what you say.

For example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683#abstract

The document that Britain composed for its governance of Palestine (Mandate for Palestine) called for implementation of the Jewish national home mentioned in the Balfour Declaration. However, Britain’s governance of Palestine, purportedly under the mandate scheme of the League of Nations, never gained a lawful foundation. The League of Nations had no power under the League Covenant to attribute legal significance to the Mandate for Palestine, or to give Britain a right to govern. Britain failed to gain sovereignty, which was a prerequisite for governing Palestine or for holding a mandate. Britain gave varying explanations at different times in an effort to show that it did hold sovereignty. The United Nations did not question Britain’s legal standing in Palestine but accepted the legitimacy of the Mandate for Palestine as a basis for dividing the country. The issue of territorial rights in historic Palestine remains unresolved to the present time.

 

[Shusha]

That is arguable (which is probably why it remains an unresolved mess.

Well no, it remains an unresolved mess because people are loathe to apply law equally to Israel. The Mandate for Palestine document is only one of many which cement Israel's claim to the territory.

 

[Shusha]

That is arguable (which is probably why it remains an unresolved mess.

I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of international law (typically that is you, Rocco and Tinmore) but I can find arguments that contradict the “absolutely” part of what you say.

For example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683#abstract

The document that Britain composed for its governance of Palestine (Mandate for Palestine) called for implementation of the Jewish national home mentioned in the Balfour Declaration. However, Britain’s governance of Palestine, purportedly under the mandate scheme of the League of Nations, never gained a lawful foundation. The League of Nations had no power under the League Covenant to attribute legal significance to the Mandate for Palestine, or to give Britain a right to govern. Britain failed to gain sovereignty, which was a prerequisite for governing Palestine or for holding a mandate. Britain gave varying explanations at different times in an effort to show that it did hold sovereignty. The United Nations did not question Britain’s legal standing in Palestine but accepted the legitimacy of the Mandate for Palestine as a basis for dividing the country. The issue of territorial rights in historic Palestine remains unresolved to the present time.

I will read that document in full, but I am already having issues with it and I am barely two paragraphs into the Introduction.

I do want to point out that Israeli claim to sovereignty does not in any way rely on sovereignty passing through British rule.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Regardless of the above, we still come back to this: the territory can not be anything other than sovereign Israel or belonging to no one. So again, the starting point, at the very least, should be "undecided" or "subject to negotiation and treaty by agreement". Not occupation.

 

[Lisa558]

If a Palestinian kills an Israeli…what happens?

He is held up as a hero. If he dies in the process, he is hailed a martyr and his family is given a financial reward. This is known as the Pay-for-Slay Law.

https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf

If an Israeli kills a Palestinian…what happens?

He goes through the criminal justice system, and if found guilty, is punished.

 

[Coyote]

He is held up as a hero. If he dies in the process, he is hailed a martyr and his family is given a financial reward. This is known as the Pay-for-Slay Law.

https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf

He goes through the criminal justice system, and if found guilty, is punished.

If a settler kills a Palestinian, burns him out, destroys his property and livelyhood, drives him out, he rarely faces consequences.

Here is what doesn’t happen to Jewish settler terrorists:
His home isn’t bulldozed.
The IDF doesn’t raid his village.
The government applauds actions.
Prosecutions are rare with only a 3% conviction rate.
He doesn’t get shot for throwing stones at police or IDF. In fact I can't find a single instance of one getting shot. How many Palestinians been shot for throwing stones?

The laws may be great but they only as good as the will to enforce them.

 

[Coyote]

I

Well no, it remains an unresolved mess because people are loathe to apply law equally to Israel. The Mandate for Palestine document is only one of many which cement Israel's claim to the territory.

think we will have to agree to disagre here.

 

[Coyote]

Multiple people have argued Israel is treated differently than any other country. I'm going agree, but also state that this different is not looked at fully.

No other country is constantly having to defend it's existence. No other os villified for defending itself.

But that treatment is not just in that regard. No other has had such widespread and unqualified support or protection for it's actions as Israel. There is no red line.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Coyote

Regardless of the above, we still come back to this: the territory can not be anything other than sovereign Israel or belonging to no one. So again, the starting point, at the very least, should be "undecided" or "subject to negotiation and treaty by agreement". Not occupation.

Didn’t Israel win that territory from Jordan after a war of aggression against them?

A case of winner takes all, to put it crudely.

A case in point, parts of Poland are now Ukraine, and the other way around.

Upper Silesia is now Poland. And Breslau.

 

[Shusha]

Didn’t Israel win that territory from Jordan after a war of aggression against them?

A case of winner takes all, to put it crudely.

Nope. Jordan never had any legal claim to that territory and was a belligerent occupier. And a state can't take territory from another state through the use of force. The territory became sovereign Israel at the moment of her Declaration of Independence in 1948. Whatever happened in 1967 has no relevance to Israel's claim.

 

[Shusha]

I think we will have to agree to disagre here.

Now wait a minute, hold on. You are abandoning the conversation? Just what are we disagreeing on?

That the territories we are discussing legally belong to Israel?
That they belong to no one?
That they belong to someone, just not Israel?

Are you abandoning the conversation because you don't have enough knowledge of the subject and don't like what you fear the answer to be? Deliberate ignorance because you wish to be able to continue to hold Israel to a different legal standard and blame Israel as the aggressor?