Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[ForeverYoung436]

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.

Shusha, I think you should say that "Israel" acquired land. Tinmore already says that "Palestine" has always had land. Though I warn you that you will never get anywhere in these far-out philosophical discussions with Tinmore.

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, I think you should say that "Israel" acquired land. Tinmore already says that "Palestine" has always had land. Though I warn you that you will never get anywhere in these far-out philosophical discussions with Tinmore.

Yes. I hear what you are saying. But I am trying to get Tinmore to understand that he is creating an artificial construct by differentiating Israel and Palestine in the years we are discussing. They are the same thing. They are the same thing, de jure. The geographical territory known as "Palestine" is the territory which became a State. Only one government arose in that territory (until much later, outside the scope of the current discussion) and only one government had the capacity to "stand alone". Only one government had the necessary criteria for creation of a State. That State, formerly known as the geographic and political territory of "Palestine", is Israel.

The legal constructs which created Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are the same as those which created Palestine (Israel). He wants it to be different, de jure, but it isn't, de jure.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I'm not sure that I did a comparative analysis. I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians has enough similarities to make it valuable. The IRA is much older (over a century) than any of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) groups surviving today. A new generation of the IRA known as the Provisionals (Provisional IRA)

How are the Palestinians any different than the IRA, the ANC, the FLN, the Mau Mau, ZANU, etc?

(COMMENT)

Of course people in the counterintelligence business, see each of these are individually and distinctive.

In May 1974, the Sinn Fein (Irish republican politico's of the IRA), were made legal. It was a splinter group of the Irish Republican Political Party; but directly associated with the Provisionls. It was an evolutionary step in the development of the organization. All during the later 1970's, the 1980's and the first half of the 1990's the evolutionary process moved toward a peaceful solution (unlike any of the HoAP).

As you know, Martin McGuiness (a terrorist himself) acting as the Chief Negotiator, Sinn Fein must be part of the Executive in Northern Ireland before the IRA hands over their weapons. But it wasn't until late 2005, the International Decommissioning Commission (IDC) completed the decommission and demilitarization of the IRA arsenal of weapons.

The Provisional IRA, through the Sinn Fein, had been activity moving towards a peaceful solution since 1974. While there was of period of progress toward Peace with the Palestinians (Oslo Accord Period), in the last quarter century the HoAP, a multi-faceted splinter community of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters. The IRA was never been so uncoordinated as the HoAP. and not really comparable. The conflict between Catholics of the Irish Republic and Protestants of Northern Ireland
(UK = England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) has come to a close, albeit an uneasy close. But the parties to the dispute are actually trying to maintain the peace.

I don't know much about Algerian Nationalist, South Africa, Kenya, or Zimbabwe.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

P F Tinmore --- this is a question that asks for something that does not exist. The proper question is: What requires a document and what form must the document take? (You can't answer that.)

----------------------------------------------------- DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER -----------------------------------------------------
This is merely Reference Material ONLY if you are interested.​

1978 VIENNA CONVENTION ON SUCCESSION OF STATES IN RESPECT OF TREATIES

In an attempt to codify the rules of succession of states the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties was drafted in 1978. It entered into force on November 6, 1996​

For the purposes of the present Convent i on:

Article 2 (1b) “ succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territor​

Article 2(1d) d) “ successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of asuccession of States.​

This might be of interest for those of you interested in the Treaty of Sevres:

Article 5 Obligations Imposed By International Law Independently Of A Treaty

The fact that a treaty is not considered to be in force in respect of a State by virtue of the
application of the present Convention shall not in any way impair the duty of that State to fulfill
any obligation embodied in the treaty to which it is subject under international law independently
of the treaty.
​

Article 11 Boundary Regimes
A succession of States does not as such affect:

(a) a boundary established by a treaty; or
(b) obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary.​

Article 12 Other Territorial Regimes

1. A succession of States does not as such affect:

(a) obligations relating to the use of any territory, or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty for the benefit of any territory of a foreign State and considered as attaching to the territories in question;
(b) rights established by a treaty for the benefit of any territory and relating to the use, or to restrictions upon the use, of any territory of a foreign State and considered as attaching to the territories in question.​

2. A succession of States does not as such affect :

(a) obligations relating to the use of any territory, or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty for the benefit of a group of States or of all States and considered as attaching to that territory;
(b) rights established by a treaty for the benefit of a group of States or of all States and relating to the use of any territory, or to restrictions upon its use, and considered as attaching to that territory.​

3. The provisions of the present article do not apply to treaty obligations of the predecessor State
providing for the establishment of foreign military bases on the territory to which the succession of
States relates.
​

Article 15 Succession In Respect Of Part Of Territory

When part of the territory of a State, or when any territory for the international relations of which
a State is responsible, not being part of the territory of that State, becomes part of the territory of
another State:

(a) treaties of the predecessor State cease to be in force in respect of the territory to which the
succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States; and
(b) treaties of the successor State are in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of
States relates from the date of the succession of States, unless it appears from the treaty or is other wise established that the application of the treaty to that territory would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation​

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.

(COMMENT)

The Montevideo Convention does not stipulate a requirement for a document. Nor does the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties have a requirement for any particular form of documentation.

Finally, I would like to point out that the current line of thought is that:

Article 39 Cases Of State Responsibility And Outbreak Of Hostilities

The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in r egard to the effect s of a succession of States in respect of a treaty from the international responsibility of a State or from the outbreak of hostilities between States.​

Article 40 Cases Of Military Occupation

The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard
to a treaty from the military occupation of a territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.

The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.

Israel acquired its land by preplanned and implemented military conquest.

 

[MJB12741]

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.

The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.

Israel acquired its land by preplanned and implemented military conquest.

Golly gee. Do you think maybe the Arab countries should not have united to annihilate Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this partially correct.

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.

The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.

Israel acquired its land by preplanned and implemented military conquest.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, you are correct in that it was the intention, from the beginning, was to establish a Jewish National Home.

Clearly, there was such an event called WWI (The Great War), and just as clearly the Allied Powers defeated the Central Powers (including the Ottoman Empire). Clearly the Ottoman Empire surrendered to that Allied Powers and clearly, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic capitulated and ultimately renounced its title and rights to the Allied Powers.

All of these contemporary nations (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) were once under the provisional Governments established by the Mandate Authorities appointed by the Allied Powers. Israel and Jordan were once under the Mandate for Palestine.

There was no military conquest for one, and an unassailable peaceful transition for the others. The Arab Palestinians had irreconcilable differences with the Jewish immigrants. The conflict rests with the fact that the primary directive mentioned and discussed at length in the Mandate was the "Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Yes, there were some riders and limitations. But in reading the Mandate, the first 24 of 28 Articles address the management of the Jewish issues and the construct of the National Home.

The scope and nature of the conflict that leads us to this point in the 21st Century has been a century in the making. It has been subject to the influence of many leaders. The tone and camber of the issues have fluctuated between moments of melody and a lack of harmony. But always (based on historical behaviors) returns to violence.

This violence should not be mistaken or characterized for anything other than what it is. The Jews have, the Arabs want it, and the fur flies. If the Arab Palestinians were to be characterized as a chicken, it could be said that is been wrung, plucked, dressed, and stuffed. But it was never quite cooked enough.

"Ceterum autem censeo Cum MCMLXVII in finibus occupatum esse delendam"
----- delenda est ----​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians had irreconcilable differences with the Jewish immigrants.

Indeed, they rejected the Zionist settler colonial project as any other people would.

Why do you hold the Palestinians to a different standard?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”. It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Partition and the Law - 1948

 

[Shusha]

The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.

Exactly. And through the very same processes and legal instruments, the government of Palestine developed, was able to stand alone and became a State. That would be the State of Israel. Just the same as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan did. See? That wasn't very difficult, was it?

 

[Hollie]

The Arab Palestinians had irreconcilable differences with the Jewish immigrants.

Indeed, they rejected the Zionist settler colonial project as any other people would.

Why do you hold the Palestinians to a different standard?

Indeed, the Israelis have the right to defend themselves from Islamic terrorists. Why would you deny defensive measures on the part of Israeli citizens?

 

[Shusha]

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people

Neither Britain nor France annexed any land. The Jewish people are an indigenous people.

“provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.

The Jewish people were and are fully capable of standing by themselves.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question

If you are going to use the Covenant of the League of Nations, you must include how these Articles were understood and used by the powers at the time. The Mandate for Palestine included a preamble which explained exactly how Article 22 was understood and to be used in the context of Palestine's sovereignty:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

The Mandate for Palestine, which was the instructions of how the Mandate was to be defined and implemented, then goes on to declare in Article 2:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


You are trying to argue that Article 22 specifically legally prohibits sovereignty for the Jewish people. It does no such thing. In fact, if you want to use Article 22 the way you seem to want to, Article 22 PROTECTS Jewish sovereignty, entrenches it in law, just the same as it does the Arab people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people

Neither Britain nor France annexed any land. The Jewish people are an indigenous people.

“provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.

The Jewish people were and are fully capable of standing by themselves.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question

If you are going to use the Covenant of the League of Nations, you must include how these Articles were understood and used by the powers at the time. The Mandate for Palestine included a preamble which explained exactly how Article 22 was understood and to be used in the context of Palestine's sovereignty:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

The Mandate for Palestine, which was the instructions of how the Mandate was to be defined and implemented, then goes on to declare in Article 2:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


You are trying to argue that Article 22 specifically legally prohibits sovereignty for the Jewish people. It does no such thing. In fact, if you want to use Article 22 the way you seem to want to, Article 22 PROTECTS Jewish sovereignty, entrenches it in law, just the same as it does the Arab people.

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​

That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.

Since they have the sovereignty, they get to determine immigration policies.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I'm looking at the map right now.

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​

That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.

Since they have the sovereignty, they get to determine immigration policies.

(QUESTION)

Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"

And in which Treaty did (President) Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points make it?

Which Treaty specifically give "no new territories should be annexed by the victors" any legitimacy?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people

Neither Britain nor France annexed any land. The Jewish people are an indigenous people.

“provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.

The Jewish people were and are fully capable of standing by themselves.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question

If you are going to use the Covenant of the League of Nations, you must include how these Articles were understood and used by the powers at the time. The Mandate for Palestine included a preamble which explained exactly how Article 22 was understood and to be used in the context of Palestine's sovereignty:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

The Mandate for Palestine, which was the instructions of how the Mandate was to be defined and implemented, then goes on to declare in Article 2:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


You are trying to argue that Article 22 specifically legally prohibits sovereignty for the Jewish people. It does no such thing. In fact, if you want to use Article 22 the way you seem to want to, Article 22 PROTECTS Jewish sovereignty, entrenches it in law, just the same as it does the Arab people.

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​

That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.

Since they have the sovereignty, they get to determine immigration policies.

I agree that any annexation should benefit the indigenous people who were Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"

None of it. It was held in trust for the indigenous people.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question

 

[MJB12741]

Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"

None of it. It was held in trust for the indigenous people.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question

It was held "in trust" for the indigenous people the Jews?

 

[Hollie]

Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"

None of it. It was held in trust for the indigenous people.

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question

As the geographic area of a Pal'istan has been conquered by various armies of various cultures, there's no reason to believe that Arab migrants / invaders are necessarily the indigenous people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

History of the conflict

 

[Hollie]

History of the conflict.