Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Is it not?
"What is the definition of either:
- Legal Occupation
- Illegal Occupation"
You got a different zionut definition Phoney?
Hamas War Crimes Against Palestinians
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
Is it not?
"What is the definition of either:
You got a different zionut definition Phoney?
Challenger
Gold Member
In you Google "Israel created HAMAS" you will get over 800,000 hits, some admittedly from conspiracy nuts, but also from mainstream media, politicians and historians. Try it, research can be fun. Oh, and stop trying to conflate patriotic freedom fighters of the past with the Islamic fundamentalist nut jobs of today, you end up looking ridiculous.
Zionist Israel is well aware that their best option is to continue the conflict and one way of doing that is to create division amongst the Palestinians. The Romans first coined the term "Divide et Impera" and we Brits were masters of the art. Lessons not lost on the Zionists as they build "lebensraum" to create their Greater Israel, from the Euphrates to the Western Sea.
Challenger
Gold Member
Legal occupation: your forces are invited in and you occupy land with the consent of the sovereign government.
Illegal occupation: since 1945 any territory acquired through conquest, whether or not in a defensive or offensive war.
But you already know this so I'm surprised and disappointed that at you chose to descend to the level of the Zionist trolls here.
Try and keep on topic and stop acting like a spoilt 12 year old brat when you are pulled up short.
Now show how you own your property legally, then show how Israel occupies the land illegally
You gave a stupid answer because you know you cant give a proper one without using islamonazi propaganda sites.
And the source will be the same in just about every instance, some left wing neo Marxist/islamonazi propagandist
WRONG that is just your fantasy version.
Read the Geneva conventions and see that you can legally occupy land for defensive measures as long as certain criteria are met. Isreal meets the criteria in full
RoccoR
Gold Member
Challenger, et al,
I am not sure that what you are saying is accurate.
Secondly, it would not apply, necessarily to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in that Israel has not shown any sign of the intention to annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip; with minor exceptions.
The acquisition of territory through "Conquest" is much different from an "Occupation;" acquisition being immaterial in "occupation." While there is a definition for an "occupation," (what it is) --- there is not definition of the difference between a "legal" or "Illegal" occupation. The current assumption, to what is legal or illegal, is found in the difference in the administration of the occupation under customary international humanitarian law. If it follows customary IHL, then it is legal, if there is a huge discrepancy then it become of a questionable character.
There is no law pertaining to the acquisition of sovereignty by "conquest;" but, rather in the use of "force." What is said is:
The Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, (DRDS) (1949) by the International Law Commission of the UN, contained (in Article 9 and Article 11) the rule that states are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by "aggressive war." However the DRDS was never adopted.
"Occupation" is an exchange of Sovereignty and the displacement of the former Sovereign Power (ousted power). What is said is:
• From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --- A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognized by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.
• TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
• "Conquest" propose the editors of the 2004 Conquest Definition: The acquisition of territory by force of arms.
For the purpose in this discussion, Israel is defined by that territorial geography on which Israel exercises its full sovereign rights to the exclusion of any other authority, or even any other subject of international law.
The Acquisition of by "conquest" (use of force) and "occupation" (belligerent or benevolent) are two different mode of the acquisition of sovereign territory.
It should be noted that Israel never used force for the purpose of acquisition or against the territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Palestine. In 1967, when the "occupation" commenced, the West Bank was territorially in the hands of the Jordanians, and the Gaza Strip was in the hands of the Egyptians. In both cases, that becomes moot in that a Treaty of Peace has been established by both nations with Israel. The Arab Palestinians were not the injured party.
The 1988 Declaration of Independence for the State of Palestine is protected from acquisition through "occupation" or "conflict" in that it is generally accepted customary IHL that acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. Relative to most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this is simply not the case.
(ORIGINAL QUESTION)
However, "occupation" in neither defined as legal or illegal. Rather --- occupation either exists or does not exist.
Most Respectfully,
R
I am not sure that what you are saying is accurate.
Secondly, it would not apply, necessarily to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in that Israel has not shown any sign of the intention to annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip; with minor exceptions.
(COMMENT)
The acquisition of territory through "Conquest" is much different from an "Occupation;" acquisition being immaterial in "occupation." While there is a definition for an "occupation," (what it is) --- there is not definition of the difference between a "legal" or "Illegal" occupation. The current assumption, to what is legal or illegal, is found in the difference in the administration of the occupation under customary international humanitarian law. If it follows customary IHL, then it is legal, if there is a huge discrepancy then it become of a questionable character.
There is no law pertaining to the acquisition of sovereignty by "conquest;" but, rather in the use of "force." What is said is:
CHAPTER I --- Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, (DRDS) (1949) by the International Law Commission of the UN, contained (in Article 9 and Article 11) the rule that states are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by "aggressive war." However the DRDS was never adopted.
"Occupation" is an exchange of Sovereignty and the displacement of the former Sovereign Power (ousted power). What is said is:
ARTICLE 42 --- Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
References:Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
• From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --- A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognized by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.
• TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
• "Conquest" propose the editors of the 2004 Conquest Definition: The acquisition of territory by force of arms.
The Acquisition of by "conquest" (use of force) and "occupation" (belligerent or benevolent) are two different mode of the acquisition of sovereign territory.
It should be noted that Israel never used force for the purpose of acquisition or against the territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Palestine. In 1967, when the "occupation" commenced, the West Bank was territorially in the hands of the Jordanians, and the Gaza Strip was in the hands of the Egyptians. In both cases, that becomes moot in that a Treaty of Peace has been established by both nations with Israel. The Arab Palestinians were not the injured party.
The 1988 Declaration of Independence for the State of Palestine is protected from acquisition through "occupation" or "conflict" in that it is generally accepted customary IHL that acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. Relative to most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this is simply not the case.
(ORIGINAL QUESTION)
However, "occupation" in neither defined as legal or illegal. Rather --- occupation either exists or does not exist.
Most Respectfully,
R
Challenger
Gold Member
I disagree. To clarify my previous post: "conquest" = "belligerent occupation"= "the acquisition of territory by force of arms"
Death by a thousand cuts is still death.
While we are talking of sovereignty, where do you think sovereignty ultimately resides?
Last edited:
And now the Jews are no longer dying from those cuts because they get in first.
With the strongest of course, which is what you don't like seeing. Israel is the stronger and will remain so until some idiot decides to use nuclear weapons.
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
hahaha... 3 years older than you then dummy!
Don't like my answer? Then how about you show me where I am illegally occupying my own property?
You can't so you just choose your zionut brainwashed bullshit...
Dumb schmuck!
You made the slip up so you need to explain why Israel are illegally occupying their territory.
As for your territory who owned it prior to you, and do you have title that goes back over 300 years ? Without that you are not the owner just the caretaker, and who owns the mineral rights to your land ?
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Strangely enough Phoney... I don't have to do anything...
Particularly when it comes to the occupied territories....
'Occupation Deniers' are as pointless as "Holocaust Deniers' and do not deserve to be entered into any kind of debate with....
Go Google Occupied Territories and then you will see why you are pointless!
Does not say that Israel is illegally occupying the west bank does it, apart from the islamonazi sources. The ones that tell the truth say it is a legal occupation under the terms of international law ( Geneva conventions )
By the way when have I denied that Israel occupy the west bank and Jerusalem
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Even for someone like you Phoney, you must find it rather odd that the ONLY country who considers the occupation 'legal' is the occupier...
Convenient eh....
International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fourth Geneva Convention | Jewish Virtual Library
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RoccoR
Gold Member
Humanity, et al,
(OFF-TOPIC)
Well, I don't think that the issue of "occupation" is being denied.
The questions about "occupation" revolve around a couple of issues:
• Is the occupation "illegal?"
• What areas of the territory are considered "occupied?"
• When did "occupation" begin?
• Who was originally "occupied?"
This move to reflect the discussion concerning the "occupation" on the basis of some unsubstantiated denial is merely a debating strategy. Reasonable inductive arguments support the conclusions. In the arguments presented concerning "occupation" --- even if their premises are true --- that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true.
Most Respectfully,
R
(OFF-TOPIC)
Well, I don't think that the issue of "occupation" is being denied.
(COMMENT)
The questions about "occupation" revolve around a couple of issues:
• Is the occupation "illegal?"
• What areas of the territory are considered "occupied?"
• When did "occupation" begin?
• Who was originally "occupied?"
• There is no definition that distinguishes a "legal" occupation from an "illegal" occupation; even under Chapter VII conditions.
• The definition for an "occupation" is fairly rigorous and uncomplicated:
∆ The area under discussion must be placed under the actual authority of the hostile army.
∆ The area claimed to be "occupied" --- extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
∆ The Gaza Strip was evacuated by the "Occupation Force" in 2005.
∆ The Oslo Accords established by agreement the jurisdiction of Area "C" in the West Bank.
• In 1967, there was no State of Palestine, or territory under the effective control of the Palestinians:
∆ The "occupied" territories are considered those in which the Article 51 Defensive action was taken in 1967 (not 1948).
∆ Gaza was (in 1967) territory controlled by Egypt.
∆ The West Bank was (in 1967) territory controlled by Jordan.
There is plenty of issues, relative to "occupation" that remain questionable. The least of which is that in 1967 on the outbreak of hostilities (the 1948 War of Independence) was rekindled, and the Armistice was broken. The validity of the established 1949 Armistice Lines were effectively made irrelevant. Similarly, the 1973 War, a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence, again made the previously established Armistice Lines further in question.• The definition for an "occupation" is fairly rigorous and uncomplicated:
∆ The area under discussion must be placed under the actual authority of the hostile army.
∆ The area claimed to be "occupied" --- extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
∆ The Gaza Strip was evacuated by the "Occupation Force" in 2005.
∆ The Oslo Accords established by agreement the jurisdiction of Area "C" in the West Bank.
∆ The "occupied" territories are considered those in which the Article 51 Defensive action was taken in 1967 (not 1948).
∆ Gaza was (in 1967) territory controlled by Egypt.
∆ The West Bank was (in 1967) territory controlled by Jordan.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
See the reply by Roccor for the reality.
And not one of the resolutions has any standing in law and as such have no standing.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Humanity, et al,
Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters January 15, 2007
After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel prevented an attempt by surrounding Arab nations to destroy it militarily, the United Nations Security Council prepared a carefully-worded resolution to guide the parties. Since then, U.N. Resolution 242 has been invoked as the centerpiece for negotiation efforts, including the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map peace plan.
But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.
Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.
It is important that we understand what UN Security Council Resolution 242 actually said.
The authors of UNSC Resolution 242 were:
Lord Caradon,
Eugene Rostow,
Arthur Goldberg,
Baron George-Brown,
Lord Caradon was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242
Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.
Eugene Rostow, was a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969.
Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.
Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
Baron George-Brown was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968.
[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.
J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970
The language “from territories” was regarded at the time of the adoption of the resolution as of high consequence because the proposal put forward by those espousing the Egyptian case was withdrawal from “the territories.” In the somewhat minute debate which frequently characterizes the period before the adoption of a United Nations resolution, the article “the” was regarded of considerable significance because its inclusion would seem to imply withdrawal from all territories which Israel had not occupied prior to the June war, but was at the present time occupying.
Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement.
UNSC Resolution 478, is (what as described as) "fundamentally flawed. It attempts to address "Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem."
UNSC Resolution 497, deals with the Golan Hieghts, which the Palestinians have no standing and vested interest in at all.
The Geneva Convention does not deal with the status of an occupation at all, and does not address the legality of the issue.
The "settlements" are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the permanent status of negotiations.
Most Respectfully,
R
Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters January 15, 2007
After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel prevented an attempt by surrounding Arab nations to destroy it militarily, the United Nations Security Council prepared a carefully-worded resolution to guide the parties. Since then, U.N. Resolution 242 has been invoked as the centerpiece for negotiation efforts, including the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map peace plan.
But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.
Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.
(COMMENT)
The authors of UNSC Resolution 242 were:
Lord Caradon,
Eugene Rostow,
Arthur Goldberg,
Baron George-Brown,
Lord Caradon was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242
Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.
Eugene Rostow, was a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969.
Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.
Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
Baron George-Brown was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968.
[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.
J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970
The language “from territories” was regarded at the time of the adoption of the resolution as of high consequence because the proposal put forward by those espousing the Egyptian case was withdrawal from “the territories.” In the somewhat minute debate which frequently characterizes the period before the adoption of a United Nations resolution, the article “the” was regarded of considerable significance because its inclusion would seem to imply withdrawal from all territories which Israel had not occupied prior to the June war, but was at the present time occupying.
Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement.
(COMMENT)
UNSC Resolution 478, is (what as described as) "fundamentally flawed. It attempts to address "Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem."
UNSC Resolution 497, deals with the Golan Hieghts, which the Palestinians have no standing and vested interest in at all.
The Geneva Convention does not deal with the status of an occupation at all, and does not address the legality of the issue.
The "settlements" are covered under the Oslo Accords and subject to the permanent status of negotiations.
Most Respectfully,
R
Challenger
Gold Member
I agree. It's interesting that the interpretations by the two Jewish Co-authors Rostow, and Goldberg differ in nuance from Brown and Caradon who follow the age old british diplomatic formula of allowing some ambiguity in "line drawing" to assist future peace negotiators.
That said 242 is clear:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
The map that accompanies this clause clearly shows the territories that Israel is expected to withdraw from: Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 - Map (11 June 1997)
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...
We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!
Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...
It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...
We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!
Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...
It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Feminist Director Fights Trump's War on Women By Making Terrible Movie that Loses Millions of Dollars- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 1
-
Judge Rejects NJ US Attorney 'Triumvirate’ In Latest Blow To Trump Prosecutors
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 1
-
-
Was the intended bombing at Mamdani home done by Anti Mamdani protesters or thrown by Muslim terrorists trying to kill protestors?- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 3
