Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
I did.
You need to keep up.
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
I did.
You need to keep up.
When as I have never seen a link saying that Israel has declared war on Palestine, hamas or fatah.
Care to produce the link then from a reputable none partisan source
By reputable none partisan source do mean those sucking Israel's dick?I did.Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
You need to keep up.
When as I have never seen a link saying that Israel has declared war on Palestine, hamas or fatah.
Care to produce the link then from a reputable none partisan source
I notice that you made no attempt to refute any of the information presented.
Well then go for it. Don't just babble on about the source.By reputable none partisan source do mean those sucking Israel's dick?I did.Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
You need to keep up.
When as I have never seen a link saying that Israel has declared war on Palestine, hamas or fatah.
Care to produce the link then from a reputable none partisan source
I notice that you made no attempt to refute any of the information presented.
Refuting your bullshit posts is like breathing: It comes naturally ..
By reputable none partisan source do mean those sucking Israel's dick?I did.Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
You need to keep up.
When as I have never seen a link saying that Israel has declared war on Palestine, hamas or fatah.
Care to produce the link then from a reputable none partisan source
I notice that you made no attempt to refute any of the information presented.
Well then go for it. Don't just babble on about the source.By reputable none partisan source do mean those sucking Israel's dick?I did.They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
You need to keep up.
When as I have never seen a link saying that Israel has declared war on Palestine, hamas or fatah.
Care to produce the link then from a reputable none partisan source
I notice that you made no attempt to refute any of the information presented.
Refuting your bullshit posts is like breathing: It comes naturally ..
Well then go for it. Don't just babble on about the source.By reputable none partisan source do mean those sucking Israel's dick?I did.They don't as Israel is not at war, but the Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and it has not been rescinded. The war zone is gaza by Hamas's making. Unless you can show differently ?
You need to keep up.
When as I have never seen a link saying that Israel has declared war on Palestine, hamas or fatah.
Care to produce the link then from a reputable none partisan source
I notice that you made no attempt to refute any of the information presented.
Refuting your bullshit posts is like breathing: It comes naturally ..
(COMMENT)Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
[/QUOTE]P F Tinmore, ET AL,
These are two unrelated and dissimilar questions:
- What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
- Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
(COMMENT)Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
The contradiction and dilemma:
This seems minor; but, in fact, makes some difference in the discussion; a difference in several distinct ways.
- Question #1 implies that the conflict region is an "Occupation."
- Question #2 implies the conflict is a "War."
In the case of an "occupation" --- the territory must be first under the authority of the Israeli's as the Occupying Power.
Questions: The Area considered "occupied since 1967" is rather unique. It has changed political status in two major ways since 1967; and has been - and still is - divided into three distinct areas.
Questions: If Israel is the "occupant" under which the "authority of the legitimate power" was passed, Then:∆ Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)Q1: What country has effective control over these three areas today?
∆ Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control)
∆ Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)
Q2: In 1967, (prior to Israeli establish control) what country (authority of the legitimate power) had effective control of the Gaza Strip?
Q3: In 1967, (prior to Israeli establish control) what country (authority of the legitimate power) had effective control of the West Bank?
Q4: What measures power does Israel to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, the laws in force in the Gaza Strip of 1967?
Q5: What measures power does Israel to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, the laws in force in the West Bank of 1967?
In the case of an "war" --- a breach of the peace through acts of aggression between different factions or states --- or --- different groups within a nation or state. {NOTE: In 1967 [A/RES/2330(XXII)] the definition of "war" or the more contemporary term of "aggression" had no international definition of consensus. That did not happen until 1974 [A/RES/3314(XXIX)](Articles 1 thru 4). Up to then, the general customary international law was applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.}
Questions: In the case of Palestine, the territory to which the Mandate applied, the two factions (Arabs and Jews) as people holding a common citizenship engaged in a every deadly conflict over the right of self-determination and the UN adoption of the Partition Plan.
Q6: Did the pre-May 1948 Civil War between the Arab citizens and the Jewish citizens ever end?
(EPILOGUE)
The belligerents never ended the Civil War conflict. While the parties to the Civil War may have changed status through the passage of time, the essential contestants and the purpose for engagement, has had no significant change. The Civil War which started in o/a 1946 --- never ended.
Most Respectfully,
R
The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?P F Tinmore, ET AL,
These are two unrelated and dissimilar questions:
- What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
- Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
(COMMENT)Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
The contradiction and dilemma:
This seems minor; but, in fact, makes some difference in the discussion; a difference in several distinct ways.
- Question #1 implies that the conflict region is an "Occupation."
- Question #2 implies the conflict is a "War."
In the case of an "occupation" --- the territory must be first under the authority of the Israeli's as the Occupying Power.
Questions: The Area considered "occupied since 1967" is rather unique. It has changed political status in two major ways since 1967; and has been - and still is - divided into three distinct areas.
Questions: If Israel is the "occupant" under which the "authority of the legitimate power" was passed, Then:∆ Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)Q1: What country has effective control over these three areas today?
∆ Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control)
∆ Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)
Q2: In 1967, (prior to Israeli establish control) what country (authority of the legitimate power) had effective control of the Gaza Strip?
Q3: In 1967, (prior to Israeli establish control) what country (authority of the legitimate power) had effective control of the West Bank?
Q4: What measures power does Israel to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, the laws in force in the Gaza Strip of 1967?
Q5: What measures power does Israel to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, the laws in force in the West Bank of 1967?
In the case of an "war" --- a breach of the peace through acts of aggression between different factions or states --- or --- different groups within a nation or state. {NOTE: In 1967 [A/RES/2330(XXII)] the definition of "war" or the more contemporary term of "aggression" had no international definition of consensus. That did not happen until 1974 [A/RES/3314(XXIX)](Articles 1 thru 4). Up to then, the general customary international law was applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.}
Questions: In the case of Palestine, the territory to which the Mandate applied, the two factions (Arabs and Jews) as people holding a common citizenship engaged in a every deadly conflict over the right of self-determination and the UN adoption of the Partition Plan.
Q6: Did the pre-May 1948 Civil War between the Arab citizens and the Jewish citizens ever end?
(EPILOGUE)
The belligerents never ended the Civil War conflict. While the parties to the Civil War may have changed status through the passage of time, the essential contestants and the purpose for engagement, has had no significant change. The Civil War which started in o/a 1946 --- never ended.
Most Respectfully,
R
The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?P F Tinmore, ET AL,
These are two unrelated and dissimilar questions:
- What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
- Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
(COMMENT)Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
The contradiction and dilemma:
This seems minor; but, in fact, makes some difference in the discussion; a difference in several distinct ways.
- Question #1 implies that the conflict region is an "Occupation."
- Question #2 implies the conflict is a "War."
In the case of an "occupation" --- the territory must be first under the authority of the Israeli's as the Occupying Power.
Questions: The Area considered "occupied since 1967" is rather unique. It has changed political status in two major ways since 1967; and has been - and still is - divided into three distinct areas.
Questions: If Israel is the "occupant" under which the "authority of the legitimate power" was passed, Then:∆ Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)Q1: What country has effective control over these three areas today?
∆ Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control)
∆ Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)
Q2: In 1967, (prior to Israeli establish control) what country (authority of the legitimate power) had effective control of the Gaza Strip?
Q3: In 1967, (prior to Israeli establish control) what country (authority of the legitimate power) had effective control of the West Bank?
Q4: What measures power does Israel to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, the laws in force in the Gaza Strip of 1967?
Q5: What measures power does Israel to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, the laws in force in the West Bank of 1967?
In the case of an "war" --- a breach of the peace through acts of aggression between different factions or states --- or --- different groups within a nation or state. {NOTE: In 1967 [A/RES/2330(XXII)] the definition of "war" or the more contemporary term of "aggression" had no international definition of consensus. That did not happen until 1974 [A/RES/3314(XXIX)](Articles 1 thru 4). Up to then, the general customary international law was applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.}
Questions: In the case of Palestine, the territory to which the Mandate applied, the two factions (Arabs and Jews) as people holding a common citizenship engaged in a every deadly conflict over the right of self-determination and the UN adoption of the Partition Plan.
Q6: Did the pre-May 1948 Civil War between the Arab citizens and the Jewish citizens ever end?
(EPILOGUE)
The belligerents never ended the Civil War conflict. While the parties to the Civil War may have changed status through the passage of time, the essential contestants and the purpose for engagement, has had no significant change. The Civil War which started in o/a 1946 --- never ended.
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the 50 some years of occupation that preceded the first rocket?
What 50 years of occupation, it is not 2037 yet.
The occupation of gaza ended in a number of rockets being fired at Israeli civilians in 2005 and increased to such an extent that Israel imposed a blockade on gaza.
Before the rockets were the IED's and suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the shootings targeting Israeli children and the beatings and knifings targeting Israeli children.
Why do the Israelis have their children in their war zone?
(REFERENCE)The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?
I question this term because I do not see a civil war.
COMMON ARTICLE 2 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:Application of the Convention
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
COMMON ARTICLE 3 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:Conflicts NOT of an International character
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, that would make it very troublesome for the Arab Palestinians. You are not alone; there are a number of constituencies that do not like the term "Civil War" simply because of the customary law definition.
BUT, there are two types of conflicts that are recognized by international humanitarian law:
- International Armed Conflict, COMMON ARTICLE 2 (IAC)
- “All cases of declared war or of any armed conflict that may arise between two or more high contracting parties, even if the state of war is not recognized."
- The Commentary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Art. 5, para. 2(g). "It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States": Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2, in: D. ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008 confirms that "any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place."
- Non-international Armed Conflict. COMMON ARTICLE 3 (NIAC)
- An armed conflicts that are non-international in nature occurring in one of the High contracting parties.
- These include armed conflicts in which one or more non-governmental armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation, hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed groups or between such groups only. As the four Geneva Conventions have universally been ratified now, the requirement that the armed conflict must occur "in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" has lost its importance in practice. Indeed, any armed conflict between governmental armed forces and armed groups or between such groups cannot but take place on the territory of one of the Parties to the Convention.
"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." SOURCE: ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008
(REFERENCE)The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?
I question this term because I do not see a civil war.
A "Civil War" (a war between citizens of the same country or domain) is not so different from what is legally termed under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as an NAIC.
Ref: How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?It poses a dilemma for the Arab Palestinian.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008
COMMON ARTICLE 2 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:Application of the Convention
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
COMMON ARTICLE 3 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:Conflicts NOT of an International character
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(COMMENT)
Yes, I can see that you might not concur that the conflict evolved from one type of armed conflict to another. What I see, relative to the Question of Palestine is that --- at some point during the period of the Mandate --- the civil strife between the Arab citizens under the Palestine Order in Council --- and the Jewish citizens under the escalated into a NAIC type conflict (Arab citizens and Jewish citizen under the same government). And that the belligerents (Arab citizens and Jewish citizens) were both forming what would later be termed as non-governmental armed groups (NgAGs) (Example: Palestinian Black Hand 'v' Haganah --- neither of which were not included as part of a state's formal armed forces) in confrontation.
I see several break-points in which the ICRC describes as an evolutionary point" or "transition" from one type of conflict to another:
- 1929 - May '48: NIAC Arab Citizens 'vs' Jewish Citizens
- May '48 - Jul '49: IAC Israel Defense Forces 'vs' Arab Joint Forces (AJF)
- 1949 - 1967: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadists
- 1967 - 1967: IDF 'vs' AJF
- 1967 - 1973: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
- 1973 - 1973: IDF 'vs' AJF
- 1973 - 1979: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
- 1979 - 1988: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
- 1988 - Present: IDF 'vs' State Sponsored Arab Palestinian Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
(DIALOG)
Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal. Since 1948, the Arab Palestinians have received direct and indirect support from most of the Arab League, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranian Quds Force --- so it can be said that the conflict has been both an IAC and an NAIAC.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, that would make it very troublesome for the Arab Palestinians. You are not alone; there are a number of constituencies that do not like the term "Civil War" simply because of the customary law definition.
BUT, there are two types of conflicts that are recognized by international humanitarian law:
- International Armed Conflict, COMMON ARTICLE 2 (IAC)
- “All cases of declared war or of any armed conflict that may arise between two or more high contracting parties, even if the state of war is not recognized."
- The Commentary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Art. 5, para. 2(g). "It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States": Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2, in: D. ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008 confirms that "any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place."
- Non-international Armed Conflict. COMMON ARTICLE 3 (NIAC)
- An armed conflicts that are non-international in nature occurring in one of the High contracting parties.
- These include armed conflicts in which one or more non-governmental armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation, hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed groups or between such groups only. As the four Geneva Conventions have universally been ratified now, the requirement that the armed conflict must occur "in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" has lost its importance in practice. Indeed, any armed conflict between governmental armed forces and armed groups or between such groups cannot but take place on the territory of one of the Parties to the Convention.
"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." SOURCE: ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008
(REFERENCE)The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?
I question this term because I do not see a civil war.
A "Civil War" (a war between citizens of the same country or domain) is not so different from what is legally termed under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as an NAIC.
Ref: How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?It poses a dilemma for the Arab Palestinian.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008
COMMON ARTICLE 2 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:Application of the Convention
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
COMMON ARTICLE 3 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:Conflicts NOT of an International character
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(COMMENT)
Yes, I can see that you might not concur that the conflict evolved from one type of armed conflict to another. What I see, relative to the Question of Palestine is that --- at some point during the period of the Mandate --- the civil strife between the Arab citizens under the Palestine Order in Council --- and the Jewish citizens under the escalated into a NAIC type conflict (Arab citizens and Jewish citizen under the same government). And that the belligerents (Arab citizens and Jewish citizens) were both forming what would later be termed as non-governmental armed groups (NgAGs) (Example: Palestinian Black Hand 'v' Haganah --- neither of which were not included as part of a state's formal armed forces) in confrontation.
I see several break-points in which the ICRC describes as an evolutionary point" or "transition" from one type of conflict to another:
- 1929 - May '48: NIAC Arab Citizens 'vs' Jewish Citizens
- May '48 - Jul '49: IAC Israel Defense Forces 'vs' Arab Joint Forces (AJF)
- 1949 - 1967: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadists
- 1967 - 1967: IDF 'vs' AJF
- 1967 - 1973: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
- 1973 - 1973: IDF 'vs' AJF
- 1973 - 1979: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
- 1979 - 1988: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
- 1988 - Present: IDF 'vs' State Sponsored Arab Palestinian Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
(DIALOG)
Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal. Since 1948, the Arab Palestinians have received direct and indirect support from most of the Arab League, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranian Quds Force --- so it can be said that the conflict has been both an IAC and an NAIAC.
Most Respectfully,
RClearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.
Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.
International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.
On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.
There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.
ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant
I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.
