Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[P F Tinmore]

• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Certainly, it comes from the UN Rule of Law cite.

• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

It is A/RES/2625(XXV), DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Page 122 on the lower right hand side:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625(XXV)

Or,

http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The sovereignty of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not conflict or overlap.

All people have the right to self defense. UN membership is not necessary.

Israel's "international boundaries" are inside Palestine. How can Palestine violate boundaries that are inside Palestine? How can that be deemed international?

(COMMENT)

Territory of Palestine (formerly under UN Mandate); not the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

"Semitic Action (Hebrew: הפעולה השמית*, HaPeulah Hashemit) was a small Israeli political group of the 1950s and 1960s which sought the creation of a regional federation encompassing Israel and its Arab neighbors.[1][2]

"Created in 1956,[2] the group's key members were Uri Avnery, Natan Yellin-Mor, and Boaz Evron,[3] with other members including Maxim Ghilan, Shalom Cohen, and Amos Kenan.[4]

"Joel Beinin describes the group as 'a political expression of the Canaanite movement' which "advocated that Hebrew-speaking Israelis cut their ties with the Jewish diaspora and integrate into the Middle East as natives of the region on the basis of an anticolonialist alliance with its indigenous Arab inhabitants."

Do you think AIPAC would approve?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Certainly, it comes from the UN Rule of Law cite.

• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

It is A/RES/2625(XXV), DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Page 122 on the lower right hand side:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625(XXV)

Or,

http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf​

Most Respectfully,
R

use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines,

OK but the armistice lines run through and around Palestine. If Palestine is on both sides of the line, how can they violate it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The sovereignty of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not conflict or overlap.

All people have the right to self defense. UN membership is not necessary.

Israel's "international boundaries" are inside Palestine. How can Palestine violate boundaries that are inside Palestine? How can that be deemed international?

(COMMENT)

Territory of Palestine (formerly under UN Mandate); not the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever it is, Palestine is there and it has international borders.

Israel sits inside Palestine with no borders of its own.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are confusing the Territory of Palestine (formerly under Mandated) and the State of Palestine (which is the Gaza Strip and West Bank).

P F Tinmore, et al,

Certainly, it comes from the UN Rule of Law cite.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

It is A/RES/2625(XXV), DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Page 122 on the lower right hand side:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625(XXV)

Or,

http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf​

Most Respectfully,
R

use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines,

OK but the armistice lines run through and around Palestine. If Palestine is on both sides of the line, how can they violate it?

(COMMENT)

You have to remember that the RoL covers the State of Israel (created in 1948) as well as the State of Palestine (created in 1988).

Under the RoL, Israel is not inside of Palestine. The territory was allocated to Israel by GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are confusing the Territory of Palestine (formerly under Mandated) and the State of Palestine (which is the Gaza Strip and West Bank).

P F Tinmore, et al,

Certainly, it comes from the UN Rule of Law cite.


(REFERENCE)

It is A/RES/2625(XXV), DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Page 122 on the lower right hand side:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625(XXV)

Or,

http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf​

Most Respectfully,
R

use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines,

OK but the armistice lines run through and around Palestine. If Palestine is on both sides of the line, how can they violate it?

(COMMENT)

You have to remember that the RoL covers the State of Israel (created in 1948) as well as the State of Palestine (created in 1988).

Under the RoL, Israel is not inside of Palestine. The territory was allocated to Israel by GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel. Israel never claimed those borders.

You keep bringing up resolution 181 like it had meaning.

 

[Bumberclyde]

So Roc, if a gang of people with weapons come to your house and give you 5 minutes to get out or they'll kill you and your whole family, would you accept it peacefully and let them take your house and land and then send you to a Warsaw Ghetto style camp, or would you be pissed off and want to fight to get it back?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

An here in lays the problem.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are confusing the Territory of Palestine (formerly under Mandated) and the State of Palestine (which is the Gaza Strip and West Bank).

OK but the armistice lines run through and around Palestine. If Palestine is on both sides of the line, how can they violate it?

(COMMENT)

You have to remember that the RoL covers the State of Israel (created in 1948) as well as the State of Palestine (created in 1988).

Under the RoL, Israel is not inside of Palestine. The territory was allocated to Israel by GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel. Israel never claimed those borders.

You keep bringing up resolution 181 like it had meaning.

(COMMENT)

This is something you keep saying: "Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel." And I agree. It was "PLAN" that Israel agreed to, and then later (1988) the Palestinians agreed to.

The Jewish Agency agree to the Partition and declared independence in accordance with the Plan. The original boundaries, sited in the Plan, have long since been overtaken by events; but in the beginning, it was the foundational agreement.

Does it have meaning? Well, it had enough meaning that the Palestinians cited it in their own Declaration of Independence, some twenty years later, and then it was recalled again (November 2012) when the UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status.

You keep saying, that "Israel never claimed those borders." I think it is fair to say it was activated in the Cablegram (S/747 16 May 1948) to the Secretary-General on 15 May, 1948.

You keep implying that the Resolution has no validity, yet the Palestinians made a special effort to confirm with the UN and Secretary-General that the Palestinians recognize it legitimacy.

In any event, your understanding of the place the Resolution had, is corrupted. More importantly, your understanding of the difference between the Territory of Palestine and the State of Palestine is corrupted.

RELATIVE to the QUESTION: There are some sort of "international lines of demarcation" all around the recognized State of Israel; as well as the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Some are Treaty Borders and some are Armistice Lines, but they exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

An here in lays the problem.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are confusing the Territory of Palestine (formerly under Mandated) and the State of Palestine (which is the Gaza Strip and West Bank).


(COMMENT)

You have to remember that the RoL covers the State of Israel (created in 1948) as well as the State of Palestine (created in 1988).

Under the RoL, Israel is not inside of Palestine. The territory was allocated to Israel by GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel. Israel never claimed those borders.

You keep bringing up resolution 181 like it had meaning.

(COMMENT)

This is something you keep saying: "Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel." And I agree. It was "PLAN" that Israel agreed to, and then later (1988) the Palestinians agreed to.

The Jewish Agency agree to the Partition and declared independence in accordance with the Plan. The original boundaries, sited in the Plan, have long since been overtaken by events; but in the beginning, it was the foundational agreement.

Does it have meaning? Well, it had enough meaning that the Palestinians cited it in their own Declaration of Independence, some twenty years later, and then it was recalled again (November 2012) when the UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status.

You keep saying, that "Israel never claimed those borders." I think it is fair to say it was activated in the Cablegram (S/747 16 May 1948) to the Secretary-General on 15 May, 1948.

You keep implying that the Resolution has no validity, yet the Palestinians made a special effort to confirm with the UN and Secretary-General that the Palestinians recognize it legitimacy.

In any event, your understanding of the place the Resolution had, is corrupted. More importantly, your understanding of the difference between the Territory of Palestine and the State of Palestine is corrupted.

RELATIVE to the QUESTION: There are some sort of "international lines of demarcation" all around the recognized State of Israel; as well as the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Some are Treaty Borders and some are Armistice Lines, but they exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you say "the Palestinians" how many Palestinians are you talking about?

Israel never agreed with resolution 181. The Cablegram (S/747 16 May 1948) to the Secretary-General on 15 May, 1948 was a lie.

The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN place it under three areas of occupation in 1949. That state was declared inside its international borders. A state does not cease to exist even when it is under occupation.

The armistice lines, that were specifically not to be political or territorial borders, have become Israel's de facto borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You use that word "lie" quite frequently.

P F Tinmore, et al,

An here in lays the problem.

Not true.

Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel. Israel never claimed those borders.

You keep bringing up resolution 181 like it had meaning.

(COMMENT)

This is something you keep saying: "Resolution 181 did not transfer any land to Israel." And I agree. It was "PLAN" that Israel agreed to, and then later (1988) the Palestinians agreed to.

The Jewish Agency agree to the Partition and declared independence in accordance with the Plan. The original boundaries, sited in the Plan, have long since been overtaken by events; but in the beginning, it was the foundational agreement.

Does it have meaning? Well, it had enough meaning that the Palestinians cited it in their own Declaration of Independence, some twenty years later, and then it was recalled again (November 2012) when the UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status.

You keep saying, that "Israel never claimed those borders." I think it is fair to say it was activated in the Cablegram (S/747 16 May 1948) to the Secretary-General on 15 May, 1948.

You keep implying that the Resolution has no validity, yet the Palestinians made a special effort to confirm with the UN and Secretary-General that the Palestinians recognize it legitimacy.

In any event, your understanding of the place the Resolution had, is corrupted. More importantly, your understanding of the difference between the Territory of Palestine and the State of Palestine is corrupted.

RELATIVE to the QUESTION: There are some sort of "international lines of demarcation" all around the recognized State of Israel; as well as the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Some are Treaty Borders and some are Armistice Lines, but they exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you say "the Palestinians" how many Palestinians are you talking about?

(COMMENT)

The voice of the Palestinians is sometimes hard to gauge. No matter who I cite as the applicable voice, you challenge it. It is as if there is no recognized government leadership behind the Palestinian.

Israel never agreed with resolution 181. The Cablegram (S/747 16 May 1948) to the Secretary-General on 15 May, 1948 was a lie.

(COMMENT)

Again, with the word "lie." I don't know how you can claim this, as the Arab-Palestinian (along with the Arab League) immediately opened hostilities with the new state of Israel on their independence say. So, how could you possible know what they accepted and what they didn't.

The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN place it under three areas of occupation in 1949. That state was declared inside its international borders. A state does not cease to exist even when it is under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians cannot declare independence on territory that is already declared independent by the Israelis. The UN did not occupy any territory or place any territory under occupation.

The armistice lines, that were specifically not to be political or territorial borders, have become Israel's de facto borders.

(COMMENT)

But they are, by definition, a demarcation line.

There are two Rules of Law (RoL) that can be applicable. It doesn't matter to me, or anyone else, which argument to choose; or if you choose both. There is a set of RoL's that cover the situation.

• If you argue that ALL international lines of demarcation for Israel are in dispute, then the following RoL applies:
  
  • Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

• If you are selectively challenging specific international lines of demarcation are in dispute, then the following applies:
  
  • Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

In any case, the discussion and annotations of the Previous Posting #353 is dead-on accurate. Both voices (HAMAS and FATAH), which ever is the most applicable or representative, are outside the RoL. It doesn't matter what position you take.

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

SOURCE: Secretary-General SG/SM/14764 SC/10883

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Bumberclyde; et al,

I guess that depends on if I'm a good guy or a bad guy.

So Roc, if a gang of people with weapons come to your house and give you 5 minutes to get out or they'll kill you and your whole family, would you accept it peacefully and let them take your house and land and then send you to a Warsaw Ghetto style camp, or would you be pissed off and want to fight to get it back?

(COMMENT)

This is a pro-Victimization question.

If I, as a lawless member of the population, open up hostilities on the Sovereign State, and back the aggression of five foreign Armies that launch an attack on my behalf, then I expect to be treated as an aggressor and hostile member of the population.

But make no mistake. I know that I am a hostile threat and operating outside the RoL.

As for the "Warsaw Ghetto style camp." May I ask, who set those camps up and why? Remember, the Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee that rejected the Partition Plan. It was the Arab League that launched the coordinated attack. It was the Arab League that failed to reach their objective.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian trusted in the Arab League and its leadership to accomplish the goal of defeating the State of Israel. Who bares the responsibility for the refugee that comes from the illegal aggression by the Arab League?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You use that word "lie" quite frequently.

Israel lies quite frequently.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The voice of the Palestinians is sometimes hard to gauge. No matter who I cite as the applicable voice, you challenge it. It is as if there is no recognized government leadership behind the Palestinian.

You usually quote Palestinians who were appointed leaders by foreign powers.

Nobody has ever answered my question: If Fatah lost the elections, why are they ruling the West Bank?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel never agreed with resolution 181. The Cablegram (S/747 16 May 1948) to the Secretary-General on 15 May, 1948 was a lie.

Again, with the word "lie." I don't know how you can claim this, as the Arab-Palestinian (along with the Arab League) immediately opened hostilities with the new state of Israel on their independence say. So, how could you possible know what they accepted and what they didn't.

Israel had ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousand of Palestinians out of the area allotted to the Jewish state. It also was cleansing thousands of Palestinians out of the area allotted to the Arabs including from the international city of Jerusalem.

All of this was before Israel sent that lie to the UN and before any Arab country entered Palestine..

What part of resolution 181 did they agree with?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Only the Palestinians can answer this question.

The voice of the Palestinians is sometimes hard to gauge. No matter who I cite as the applicable voice, you challenge it. It is as if there is no recognized government leadership behind the Palestinian.

You usually quote Palestinians who were appointed leaders by foreign powers.

Nobody has ever answered my question: If Fatah lost the elections, why are they ruling the West Bank?

(COMMENT)

And no one can answer why the Palestinians have a bifurcated government, except the Palestinians. It is their government.

Now I suppose that Israel and the US will be blamed for the Palestinians not having the capacity to seat their government. It is part and parcel the way the victim plays the role. But only the Palestinians can rise up and change the voice.

For me, it doesn't matter. As I said, both HAMAS and FATAH are equally outside the Rule of Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN place it under three areas of occupation in 1949. That state was declared inside its international borders. A state does not cease to exist even when it is under occupation.

The Palestinians cannot declare independence on territory that is already declared independent by the Israelis. The UN did not occupy any territory or place any territory under occupation.

Israel never declared any territory. Palestine declared its territory inside its already existing international borders.

The UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation with it armistice lines in 1949. This was after Palestine declared its independence from the mandate in 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Only the Palestinians can answer this question.

The voice of the Palestinians is sometimes hard to gauge. No matter who I cite as the applicable voice, you challenge it. It is as if there is no recognized government leadership behind the Palestinian.

You usually quote Palestinians who were appointed leaders by foreign powers.

Nobody has ever answered my question: If Fatah lost the elections, why are they ruling the West Bank?

(COMMENT)

And no one can answer why the Palestinians have a bifurcated government, except the Palestinians. It is their government.

Now I suppose that Israel and the US will be blamed for the Palestinians not having the capacity to seat their government. It is part and parcel the way the victim plays the role. But only the Palestinians can rise up and change the voice.

For me, it doesn't matter. As I said, both HAMAS and FATAH are equally outside the Rule of Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is a matter of history.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ai-Udti1M]On The Map with Avi Lewis: Gaza Coup d'Etat? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you argue that ALL international lines of demarcation for Israel are in dispute, then the following RoL applies:

Palestine has international borders.

Israel has no borders.

I don't see a dispute. None of the following applies.