Israel does not target civilians?

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

The today is pretty much the same as the law, set down by the Judgment. The Rome Statutes use the same language although expanded in some sense.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

(COMMENT)

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

The justification comes directly from the Arab Higher Committee that stated in part:

"The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them."
"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."
"The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

This is, in effect, where the Arabs of Palestine, openly defy the Resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. It is in effect, a Declaration of War.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Not that it makes any difference today, since the Covenant is no longer in force, there is a time line that expresses the INTENT of the ALLIED POWERs.

1. There is no international dispute, the conflict is between an occupied population and the occupier.

2. Settlements in occupied Palestine are not civilian, they are military citadels which are utilized to facilitate further military conquest

montelatici, et al,

Nonsense.

So Rocco, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it is the Zionist Europeans with the complicity of the British, that led an insurrection to steal the provisional or promised (under treaty) sovereignty from the native people of Palestine.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the League of Nation Covenant addresses politico-military agreements made after the Covenant. Nothing in the covenant promises anything specific to the Arab Palestinians (although the Mandate for Palestine partitioned 77% of the territory to be an Arab State), or obligates the Allied Power to surrender anything (to the inhabitants of the enemy occupied territory) that was surrendered to the Allied Powers after the Covenant.

Remember the Allied Powers wrote the Covenant, and the Allied Powers wrote the Convention, treaties and mandates which followed. The Allied Powers determine the proper disposition just as the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne states:

ARTICLE 16. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

The parties concerned being the Allied Powers who accepted the "renounced rights and titles." The Allied Powers determine the future of the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are very confused.

1. The Covenant promises the native people, in the case of Palestine the Arabs, the Mandatory's tutelage to enable the native people to assume full sovereignty from provisional sovereignty.

2. By signing the Covenant the party signing agreed that:

"The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant. The Zionists were not natives of Palestine. They were Europeans.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers who wrote the covenant, never declared the holder of any obligation as "inconsistent with the covenant."

The Allied Powers, who wrote the Covenant in 1919, held the San Remo Convention in 1920. The Order in Council (of the League of Nations) was 1922, as was the Mandate for Palestine. THERE is absolutely no question on the matter. The Council of the League of Nations stated the Principal Allied Powers have agreed the contents and intend of the Mandate. It was their INTENT to favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, facilitate Jewish immigration in the furtherance of a Jewish National Home; for all Jews who are willing to make such a Jewish National Home.

Don't confuse what the pro-Palestinians would like law to say on the matter, and what these fundamental documents say, and the order in which the Powers established their intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The natives of Palestine had every right to resist the illegal partition and assignment of 55% of Palestine to a non native colonizing European population. In complete contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

To break the will of the Israeli Jews so that they will sue for peace, the Palestinians must engage in resistance, armed resistance by a people under belligerent is sanctioned under International law. And, the Israelis, are contravening Article 1. of 1514 (XV), hence the Palestinians are in the right.


"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

"1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected."

As with other newer colonial projects, the land will be restored to the native people, eventually.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

There is a falsehood here, a truth here, a misrepresentation of a fact, and an extremely complex argument of a moral and ethical nature here.

The Geneva Convention documents are available on the UN website and says the same thing.

Article 1(4) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 POW status now extends to members of an organized group fighting “against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination”

There is a policy of targeting civilians.

Dahiyah Doctrine

(OBSERVATION)

Ask yourself these simple questions.

Has anyone of you actually read the text of the Official Form (so-called) "Dahiya Doctrine?"
Do you personally know anyone who has read this (so-called) doctrine?

The description of the "Dahiya Doctrine" is based largely on a US Embassy Cable (OCT 2008) that essential is very short on explanation:

Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon should hostilities resume.
​

This Dahiya Doctrine is a variation of 1991 US Doctrine:

An established principle has been that the use of force, once its necessity was determined, should be implemented through a concentration of overwhelming force. While serving as Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, adopted the Powell Doctrine, establishing the principle of overwhelming force as a necessary condition for waging war.
​

War and Military Conflicts are “the continuation of policy by other means, and the very thing which creates policy.” (General Carl von Clausewitz Prussian General Staff) GEN Clausewitz understood that the definition of war was “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.”

NOTE: What most people don't grasp is the War/Conflict differ from terrorism in that terrorism is precisely the use of random violence—especially killing force—against civilians, with the intent of spreading fear throughout a population, hoping this fear will advance a political objective (breaking the will of the opposition to continue the struggle). It is not terrorism if the overwhelming force is directed against a specific military objective, even if it generates civilian casualties.
​

Wars/Conflicts are fought on the basis of:

• A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause.
• A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public.
• A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation.
• A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation.
• A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties.

(COMMENT)

The (so-called) Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with the targeting of "civilians." It has everything to do with:

• A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation.
• A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the consequence expected to result from the engagement (strategic or tactical, such as securing the just cause, against the recognized evils result; notably casualties.

The military force may not use weapons or methods which are “evil in themselves.” These include: mass rape campaigns; genocide or ethnic cleansing; using poison or treachery (like disguising soldiers to look like the Red Cross).

In most of the discussion here, especial in this discussion thread (Israel does not target civilians), is centrically bound to the issues of (1) genocide or ethnic cleansing --- and ---- (2) the incriminate fires which are in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime. One of the key element in the adopted Powell Doctrine asks the question: "Is the action supported by the American people?"

Neither the US Powell Doctrine or the IS Dahiya Doctrine are evil in themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.​

Would firing rockets on illegal settlements be a crime?

Yes as it is the act of firing the rockets that is the crime, because they cant be steered and have a tendency to go of course they are seen as illegal weapons.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

YES look at the terms and conditions of the LoN charter and the LoN mandate for Palestine. The arab muslims received 78% of Palestine and the Jews 22%. So why do the arab muslims want what was never theirs to begin with.

The LoN didn't have any land.

According to the surrender treaty with the Ottomans it took over most of the Ottoman lands, or do0 you read different history books to everyone else ?

But lets say you are correct then this means that none of the Islamic nations exist in law as the LoN could not hand the land to them. The ottomans did not negotiate with the arab muslims and grant them the land did they, they negotiated with the British and her allies

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

We are straying too far off-topic.

1. There is no international dispute, the conflict is between an occupied population and the occupier.

2. Settlements in occupied Palestine are not civilian, they are military citadels which are utilized to facilitate further military conquest.

(COMMENT)

That depends on which set of threats and challenges you listen to from the Hostile Arab Palestinian side. But that is for another discussion.
The settlements are not military in nature. They are established under the Oslo Accords. Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C"....

You are very confused.

1. The Covenant promises the native people, in the case of Palestine the Arabs, the Mandatory's tutelage to enable the native people to assume full sovereignty from provisional sovereignty.

2. By signing the Covenant the party signing agreed that:

"The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
"Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government."

You cannot force feed the Arabs of Palestine. In late 1947 - early 1948, the Arab of Palestine again declined to participate in the establishment of a process leading to self-government.

Now the Hashemites did cooperate with the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. The were allocated 77% of the territory.

The solemn oath was carried-out.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant. The Zionists were not natives of Palestine. They were Europeans.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

(COMMENT)

The Arab of Palestine had no right to deny the Jewish immigration rights, or even the establishment of a state. The territory to which the Mandate applied (Palestine) was in the hands of the Allied Powers... not the Arab of Palestine.

There is absolutely nothing in the Covenant that precludes the Allied Powers from determining the future as stipulated in the 1924 Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is not what I am saying ---

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

(COMMENT)

I'm say that what is today called sovereign Israel was never taken from a sovereign Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

When did it become international law then ?

And who has stopped the arab muslims in Palestine from becoming self governing. They took step one of 3 so why are they holding back on the last two steps ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused. Palestine (and Syria) were under a joint Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA was a joint British and French military administration until the mandates were established. The mandates, to be valid once the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed, had to be consistent with the Covenant. To be consistent with eh Covenant, the Mandatory's obligation was to bring the native people to a condition in which they would be self-governing. The native people were not the Jewish Europeans that had been migrating.

The Covenant article 22, states in part:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population..."

While most non-partisans agree that Palestine was, in fact, considered to be one of the former Turkish territories that were given provisional statehood, even were Palestine to be considered one of the latter cases, the Mandatory was still required to manage the country to the benefit of the native inhabitants. Furthermore, if there were any previous agreements that prevented a signatory to the Covenant from fulfilling its duties to the native people, such as the Balfour Declaration, Article 20 required that such agreements be abrogated.

So Rocco, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it is the Zionist Europeans with the complicity of the British, that led an insurrection to steal the provisional or promised (under treaty) sovereignty from the native people of Palestine.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.​

It says that Britain had to ditch the Balfour Declaration before it could be a member of the LoN.

Interesting.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Just show me where GA/RES/1514(XV) went into force as law?

"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

(COMMENT)

You cannot, because it never did.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

We are straying too far off-topic.

1. There is no international dispute, the conflict is between an occupied population and the occupier.

2. Settlements in occupied Palestine are not civilian, they are military citadels which are utilized to facilitate further military conquest.

(COMMENT)

That depends on which set of threats and challenges you listen to from the Hostile Arab Palestinian side. But that is for another discussion.
The settlements are not military in nature. They are established under the Oslo Accords. Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C"....

You are very confused.

1. The Covenant promises the native people, in the case of Palestine the Arabs, the Mandatory's tutelage to enable the native people to assume full sovereignty from provisional sovereignty.

2. By signing the Covenant the party signing agreed that:

"The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
"Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government."

You cannot force feed the Arabs of Palestine. In late 1947 - early 1948, the Arab of Palestine again declined to participate in the establishment of a process leading to self-government.

Now the Hashemites did cooperate with the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. The were allocated 77% of the territory.

The solemn oath was carried-out.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant. The Zionists were not natives of Palestine. They were Europeans.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

(COMMENT)

The Arab of Palestine had no right to deny the Jewish immigration rights, or even the establishment of a state. The territory to which the Mandate applied (Palestine) was in the hands of the Allied Powers... not the Arab of Palestine.

There is absolutely nothing in the Covenant that precludes the Allied Powers from determining the future as stipulated in the 1924 Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The Arabs established several institutions to represent them, the British did not accept any of them, beginning with the Christian-Muslim Arab Association of Palestine in 1921 or 22.

"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine"

The British would not accept any Arab institution nor the many constitutions put forward by the various institutions because all of them requested equal treatment as all other Mandates.

The native people of Palestine had every right to deny the migration of hordes of Jews into the land they were the natives of. Pursuant to the Covenant of the League of Nations, the arrival of Jewish European hordes contravened the very essence of the Covenant, to wit:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

The sacred trust of civilization was intended for the native people, not European colonists!

The Mandatory was required to adhere to the Covenant as stated in the Covenant.

What is it that you are unable to comprehend?

The settlements are military enclaves with residents armed to the teeth. They are the Crusader castles of today.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Just show me where GA/RES/1514(XV) went into force as law?

"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

(COMMENT)

You cannot, because it never did.

Most Respectfully,
R

Every article in Resolution 1514 is based on already existing international law.

It merely defines the application of existing law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

The today is pretty much the same as the law, set down by the Judgment. The Rome Statutes use the same language although expanded in some sense.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

(COMMENT)

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

The justification comes directly from the Arab Higher Committee that stated in part:

"The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them."
"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."
"The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

This is, in effect, where the Arabs of Palestine, openly defy the Resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. It is in effect, a Declaration of War.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[Billo_Really]

Did you miss this then


Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger.

Yeah, I noticed that. But it's a far cry from your claim they committed more war crimes than Israel.

 

[Billo_Really]

Neither does Palestine as they are split by politics and religion.

They're split by Zionist, warmongering assholes, who have no problem shooting innocent civilians on one side and a decent, proud population of Arabs, who just want to live free of Israeli tyranny.

No as we are talking about pre 1948 and the land was never surrendered to the arab muslims

The land before 1948, 85% was owned by Arabs, 7% was owned by Jews.

...land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation.​

The UN Mandate wanted to give over half the land, to a third of the population.

...the U.N. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”.​

Do explain how when the Jews outnumber the Palestinians inside Israel. They only occupy and police the west bank for defensive purposes. The Jews have demonstrated free determination, when will the Palestinian arab muslims ?

When you end the occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

montelatici, et al,

Just show me where GA/RES/1514(XV) went into force as law?

"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

(COMMENT)

You cannot, because it never did.

Most Respectfully,
R

Every article in Resolution 1514 is based on already existing international law.

It merely defines the application of existing law.

(COMMENT)

Paragraph 1:
The UN Charter does not mention subjugation or domination. The Charter does not mention "denial of human rights."

Paragraph 2:
The Charter does mention the "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" in reference to the conditions of economic, social progress and development. But that has no relationship to sovereignty or decolonization.

Paragraph 3:
The "pretext" or "delay" was not mentioned in the Charter at all; even remotely to the concept of independence.

Paragraph 4:
This is a tricky "prohibition." This is a domestic issue. For instance, in the United States, there is no right to secede. (Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”) It is what we call a “perpetual union."

Paragraph 5
This is a case where the UN is implying that it has the authority to intervene and demands a sovereignty to transfer powers.

Article 2(7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​

Paragraph 6:
This has no requirement.

Paragraph 7:
This paragraph is a demand to observe; however, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is formally, as a declaration of the UNGA, is not binding on Member States. While it does have broad international acceptance of the UDHR, over the last 60 years has given its principles some legal status.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has only occasionally referred to the UDHR, usually in dissenting or separate opinions. For example Judge Tanaka’s dissenting opinion in the South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa) (Second Phase) referred to the UDHR as ‘not binding in itself’, but nevertheless ‘evidence of the interpretation and application’ of the human rights clauses in the UN Charter (at 293; see also United Nations Charter, Interpretation of).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

What does the United Nations Charter have to do with international law promulgated after the Charter was signed?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and the assignment of 55% of the land to European colonists contravened the rights accruing to the inhabitants (natives) of the former Turkish territories as under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

 

[montelatici]

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.