Israel's war crimes

[Hollie]

Paris donor nations pledge billions for Palestinians
• The Guardian, 17 DEC 2017 •
Palestinians today won a powerful signal of international and Arab support for an independent state, with billions of dollars of aid pledges to revive their economy and help boost renewed but still badly faltering peace negotiations with Israel.
(QUESTION)

How did they use all that money???

They don't get cash. They get stuff. What stuff did they get to develop their economy?

Actually, they do get cash. Now they want their welfare fraud payments via electronic transfer.

Mo' money for Arab-Moslem welfare thieves.

Can PA's push for e-payments help ease its cash crunch?

 

[Shusha]

You cannot (absolutely not) demand that these principles apply to the Arab Palestinian struggle to emerge - and then - withhold them from the establishment and development of the Israeli People.

It would be interesting to see you try to justify this assertion.

Wait, what?! You want him to try to justify the basic concept that all peoples should be treated equally?

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Neither sovereignty or self-determination are just pieces of official paper. These are concepts applied in reality. The Arab-Jewish Civil War in the territory to which the Mandatory Palestine applied, was an induced event as a prelude to the 1948 War on the independence of Israel. War was a product out of the UN General Assembly adoption of A/RES/181 (II) Resolution of 29 November 1947 recommending → the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.

Here is one that is never discussed. Between 1947 and 1949, Israel took control of 78% of Palestine by force. It is illegal to acquire territory by the threat or use if force. This concept was included in the UN Charter in 1945.

I have seen no documents showing where Israel acquired legal title and sovereignty over that land.

(COMMENT)

In reality, no piece of paper can establish or legitimize territorial sovereignty. The territorial sovereignty becomes a reality when the people "physically" create it and effectively establishes their territory.

Stop asking questions about things that don't exist, and for which there is no requirement.

In the post-War shadow of the 1949 Armistice Arrangement, there gradually grew a Nation in the image and ideal of a Jewish National Home.

✪ ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of States

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

✪ ARTICLE 6 Convention on Rights and Duties of States

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​

✪ ARTICLE 7 Convention on Rights and Duties of States

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​

And then there is:

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN

September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm
conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

• The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
• The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
• The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
• The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event,
• inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.

Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.


Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization​

There is no required "documents showing where Israel acquired legal title and sovereignty over that land." Israel either has establish sovereign control, OR, it has not.

Most Respectfully,
R

✪ ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

I agree with this principle, however, I think your application is misplaced.

You HAVE to be kidding!!!! Jordan and Egypt did not show sovereignty over “ Palestine?” Better start taking your Meds.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Neither sovereignty or self-determination are just pieces of official paper. These are concepts applied in reality. The Arab-Jewish Civil War in the territory to which the Mandatory Palestine applied, was an induced event as a prelude to the 1948 War on the independence of Israel. War was a product out of the UN General Assembly adoption of A/RES/181 (II) Resolution of 29 November 1947 recommending → the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.

Here is one that is never discussed. Between 1947 and 1949, Israel took control of 78% of Palestine by force. It is illegal to acquire territory by the threat or use if force. This concept was included in the UN Charter in 1945.

I have seen no documents showing where Israel acquired legal title and sovereignty over that land.

(COMMENT)

In reality, no piece of paper can establish or legitimize territorial sovereignty. The territorial sovereignty becomes a reality when the people "physically" create it and effectively establishes their territory.

Stop asking questions about things that don't exist, and for which there is no requirement.

In the post-War shadow of the 1949 Armistice Arrangement, there gradually grew a Nation in the image and ideal of a Jewish National Home.

✪ ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of States

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

✪ ARTICLE 6 Convention on Rights and Duties of States

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​

✪ ARTICLE 7 Convention on Rights and Duties of States

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​

And then there is:

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN

September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm
conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

• The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
• The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
• The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
• The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event,
• inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.

Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.


Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization​

There is no required "documents showing where Israel acquired legal title and sovereignty over that land." Israel either has establish sovereign control, OR, it has not.

Most Respectfully,
R

✪ ARTICLE 3 Convention on Rights and Duties of States
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

I agree with this principle, however, I think your application is misplaced.

You HAVE to be kidding!!!! Jordan and Egypt did not show sovereignty over “ Palestine?” Better start taking your Meds.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

And how many times did our friend "P F Tinmore" bring-up the All-Palestinhe Government (APG) declaration of independence of September of 1948. The APG set-up shop in Gaza City.

I agree with this principle, however, I think your application is misplaced.

You HAVE to be kidding!!!! Jordan and Egypt did not show sovereignty over “ Palestine?” Better start taking your Meds.

(COMMENT)

There is a Parental ⇔ Dependent relationship between Egypt and the APG. And as the usefulness (to Egypt) of the APG deminished, the Egypt (as the parent) dissolved the APG (as the dependent) that claimed the soverenty, intengrity and independence over Palestine. But that is a plastic claim. For all intent and purposes. Egypt was extending its sovereign authority masked through the Military Governorship over the APG. APG only had such control as permitedby the Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

And how many times did our friend "P F Tinmore" bring-up the All-Palestinhe Government (APG) declaration of independence of September of 1948. The APG set-up shop in Gaza City.

I agree with this principle, however, I think your application is misplaced.

You HAVE to be kidding!!!! Jordan and Egypt did not show sovereignty over “ Palestine?” Better start taking your Meds.

(COMMENT)

There is a Parental ⇔ Dependent relationship between Egypt and the APG. And as the usefulness (to Egypt) of the APG deminished, the Egypt (as the parent) dissolved the APG (as the dependent) that claimed the soverenty, intengrity and independence over Palestine. But that is a plastic claim. For all intent and purposes. Egypt was extending its sovereign authority masked through the Military Governorship over the APG. APG only had such control as permitedby the Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, come on. Don't make it look like there mitigating circumstances for the shoulder to cry on (I just bought this shirt).

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

The Egyptian Military Governorship set the backdrop for the Arab League assembled All Palestine Government (APG). The APG retained its offices in Cairo and was largely symbolic until it was dissolved by the Egyptian Government. Even in the Egyptian Military Governorship (a form of a protectorate). Egypt renounced all claims (sovereignty) to the Gaza Strip; but still maintained Effective Control (precluding APG Sovereignty). No Palestinian self-governing institutions were established.

Anyone can declare independence and sovereignty. Hell, I can make the exact declaration for my street. But if I do, LEOs and Federal Agent will insure my immediate arrest.

Now, no matter how you interpret the facts → the APG was unable to follow-through with any claims and declarations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, come on. Don't make it look like there mitigating circumstances for the shoulder to cry on (I just bought this shirt).

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

The Egyptian Military Governorship set the backdrop for the Arab League assembled All Palestine Government (APG). The APG retained its offices in Cairo and was largely symbolic until it was dissolved by the Egyptian Government. Even in the Egyptian Military Governorship (a form of a protectorate). Egypt renounced all claims (sovereignty) to the Gaza Strip; but still maintained Effective Control (precluding APG Sovereignty). No Palestinian self-governing institutions were established.

Anyone can declare independence and sovereignty. Hell, I can make the exact declaration for my street. But if I do, LEOs and Federal Agent will insure my immediate arrest.

Now, no matter how you interpret the facts → the APG was unable to follow-through with any claims and declarations.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are bouncing around like a football.

What part of that refutes my post?

 

[Shusha]

What part of that refutes my post?

The part where self-determination requires the determination. And the part where self-government requires a government. And the part where sovereignty requires a sovereign and control over territory. In other words -- actual stuff, not cobwebs and dreams.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What part of that refutes my post?

The part where self-determination requires the determination. And the part where self-government requires a government. And the part where sovereignty requires a sovereign and control over territory. In other words -- actual stuff, not cobwebs and dreams.

You, like Rocco, are confusing military control with sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

You, like Rocco, are confusing military control with sovereignty.

Nope. Not at all. Rocco often talks about effective control (which is totally valid), but I usually only discuss legal issues, treaties and such. You just like to argue that Jewish people have no rights to sovereignty therefore don't have it and can't have it. Its a false premise.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, "Susha" is NOT "confusing military control with sovereignty." But Shusha know that while "effective (military) control" of "foreign administration" is NOT an extension of sovereignty, with such control and/or administration in place, it would be extremely hard for the Arab Palestinians to claim any sort of functions of a State to the exclusion → of any other States (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc).

What part of that refutes my post?

The part where self-determination requires the determination. And the part where self-government requires a government. And the part where sovereignty requires a sovereign and control over territory. In other words -- actual stuff, not cobwebs and dreams.

You, like Rocco, are confusing military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

Make no mistake! The Arab Palestinians are not recognized as sovereign because of what Israel, Egypt or Jordan (etc) have dome, but on the basis of what the Arab Palestinian Leadership (in Ramallah and Gaza City) have not been able to achieve in decades and the donation of billions of dollars.

• There is no central Arab Palestinian Leadership that exercises control to the exclusion of all other states over the entirety of the territory they claim.
• There is no central Arab Palestinian Leadership which are entitled to perform acts in the exercise of sovereign authority, and are acting in that capacity; with the exception of Area "C."
• There is no central Arab Palestinian agencies or instrumentalities of the State or other entities, to the extent that they are actually performing acts in the exercise of sovereign authority of the State.​

It IS NOT our "confusing military control with sovereignty." It IS your confusions on what the meaning of sovereignty is and where the Arab Palestinian Leadership (however you define it) actually exercises that authority. NO MATTER what excuse you may offer in mitigation of the lack of --- or prevention of --- the ability to exercise sovereignty, it remains an indelible fact that the Arab Palestinian Leadership does not now, no have they in the last several centuries, exercised sovereignty over any of the territory formerly subject to the Mandate of Palestine.

(SIDEBAR)

International disputes are conceptually settled on the basis of the sovereign equality of States. That is on the basis that Israel's sovereignty is equivalent to Arab Palestinian sovereignty.

The Arab Palestinians have challenged this premise (as demonstrated by the Three No's of the Khartoum Resolution). See the Posting #31 by Shashu...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, "Susha" is NOT "confusing military control with sovereignty." But Shusha know that while "effective (military) control" of "foreign administration" is NOT an extension of sovereignty, with such control and/or administration in place, it would be extremely hard for the Arab Palestinians to claim any sort of functions of a State to the exclusion → of any other States (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc).

What part of that refutes my post?

The part where self-determination requires the determination. And the part where self-government requires a government. And the part where sovereignty requires a sovereign and control over territory. In other words -- actual stuff, not cobwebs and dreams.

You, like Rocco, are confusing military control with sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

Make no mistake! The Arab Palestinians are not recognized as sovereign because of what Israel, Egypt or Jordan (etc) have dome, but on the basis of what the Arab Palestinian Leadership (in Ramallah and Gaza City) have not been able to achieve in decades and the donation of billions of dollars.

• There is no central Arab Palestinian Leadership that exercises control to the exclusion of all other states over the entirety of the territory they claim.
• There is no central Arab Palestinian Leadership which are entitled to perform acts in the exercise of sovereign authority, and are acting in that capacity; with the exception of Area "C."
• There is no central Arab Palestinian agencies or instrumentalities of the State or other entities, to the extent that they are actually performing acts in the exercise of sovereign authority of the State.​

It IS NOT our "confusing military control with sovereignty." It IS your confusions on what the meaning of sovereignty is and where the Arab Palestinian Leadership (however you define it) actually exercises that authority. NO MATTER what excuse you may offer in mitigation of the lack of --- or prevention of --- the ability to exercise sovereignty, it remains an indelible fact that the Arab Palestinian Leadership does not now, no have they in the last several centuries, exercised sovereignty over any of the territory formerly subject to the Mandate of Palestine.

(SIDEBAR)

International disputes are conceptually settled on the basis of the sovereign equality of States. That is on the basis that Israel's sovereignty is equivalent to Arab Palestinian sovereignty.

The Arab Palestinians have challenged this premise (as demonstrated by the Three No's of the Khartoum Resolution). See the Posting #31 by Shashu...

Most Respectfully,
R

You still have not refuted anything in my post.

 

[Shusha]

You are confusing the absence of sovereignty with actual sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are confusing the absence of sovereignty with actual sovereignty.

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,

Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, you are just being blind to the responses. You have not made a single allegation that was either out of context or outrightly refuted (not a single one).

You still have not refuted anything in my post.

(COMMENT)

Everything was addressed.

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

(COMMENT)

Military control and sovereignty were clearly addressed.

The "fact" that the Arab Palestinian Leadership was not competent enough to establish an arrangement for sovereignty. While the Arab Palestinian Leadership can claim sovereignty over territory, it does NOT (in any way) mean that they were successful. And to respond that the Arab Palestinian Leadership had some "right to sovereignty" does not require any foreign power having a preexisting Military Control to relinquish such control to the Arab Palestinian Leadership. There is no International Rule of Law or Procedure that require the relinquishment. The proper forum is outlined in A/RES/25/2526 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Nothing in law requires the preexisting Militar Control to release territory to the Arab Palestinians; rights or no rights.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

That is not exactly correct. The Rule of Law says that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The Arab Palestinians did not have any territory to have integrity and sovereignty over.​

Most Respectfully,
R

External Reference:

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory [12]
The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.[13]
Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.
(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]

 

[Shusha]

You are confusing the absence of sovereignty with actual sovereignty.

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,

Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

Yep. Still confusing the right to sovereignty coupled with the absence of sovereignty and the actuality of sovereignty. Neither Rocco nor myself are denying the right of the Arabs to more sovereignty. We are just arguing they haven't got it yet. Nor do they have the capacity for it yet.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, you are just being blind to the responses. You have not made a single allegation that was either out of context or outrightly refuted (not a single one).

You still have not refuted anything in my post.

(COMMENT)

Everything was addressed.

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

(COMMENT)

Military control and sovereignty were clearly addressed.

The "fact" that the Arab Palestinian Leadership was not competent enough to establish an arrangement for sovereignty. While the Arab Palestinian Leadership can claim sovereignty over territory, it does NOT (in any way) mean that they were successful. And to respond that the Arab Palestinian Leadership had some "right to sovereignty" does not require any foreign power having a preexisting Military Control to relinquish such control to the Arab Palestinian Leadership. There is no International Rule of Law or Procedure that require the relinquishment. The proper forum is outlined in A/RES/25/2526 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Nothing in law requires the preexisting Militar Control to release territory to the Arab Palestinians; rights or no rights.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

That is not exactly correct. The Rule of Law says that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The Arab Palestinians did not have any territory to have integrity and sovereignty over.​

Most Respectfully,
R

External Reference:

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory [12]
The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.[13]
Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.
(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]

The Arab Palestinians did not have any territory to have integrity and sovereignty over.

Israeli say so.

Israel's bullshit propaganda has always tried to erase Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, you are just being blind to the responses. You have not made a single allegation that was either out of context or outrightly refuted (not a single one).

You still have not refuted anything in my post.

(COMMENT)

Everything was addressed.

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

(COMMENT)

Military control and sovereignty were clearly addressed.

The "fact" that the Arab Palestinian Leadership was not competent enough to establish an arrangement for sovereignty. While the Arab Palestinian Leadership can claim sovereignty over territory, it does NOT (in any way) mean that they were successful. And to respond that the Arab Palestinian Leadership had some "right to sovereignty" does not require any foreign power having a preexisting Military Control to relinquish such control to the Arab Palestinian Leadership. There is no International Rule of Law or Procedure that require the relinquishment. The proper forum is outlined in A/RES/25/2526 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Nothing in law requires the preexisting Militar Control to release territory to the Arab Palestinians; rights or no rights.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

That is not exactly correct. The Rule of Law says that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The Arab Palestinians did not have any territory to have integrity and sovereignty over.​

Most Respectfully,
R

External Reference:

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory [12]
The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.[13]
Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.
(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.

I assume that peaceful means uncontested. Israel's military conquest of Palestine has never been peaceful and uncontested.

 

[Indeependent]

RE: Israel's war crimes
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, you are just being blind to the responses. You have not made a single allegation that was either out of context or outrightly refuted (not a single one).

You still have not refuted anything in my post.

(COMMENT)

Everything was addressed.

Here again, you confuse military control with sovereignty. It does not matter that the Palestinians had assistance in creating a government. Eighty or so Palestinian leaders assembled to form a government to declare independence of their already existing state. A people does not need permission to declare statehood inside their own defined territory. The 1948 Palestinian Declaration if Independence was 100% legal and was recognized by five other states.

(COMMENT)

Military control and sovereignty were clearly addressed.

The "fact" that the Arab Palestinian Leadership was not competent enough to establish an arrangement for sovereignty. While the Arab Palestinian Leadership can claim sovereignty over territory, it does NOT (in any way) mean that they were successful. And to respond that the Arab Palestinian Leadership had some "right to sovereignty" does not require any foreign power having a preexisting Military Control to relinquish such control to the Arab Palestinian Leadership. There is no International Rule of Law or Procedure that require the relinquishment. The proper forum is outlined in A/RES/25/2526 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Nothing in law requires the preexisting Militar Control to release territory to the Arab Palestinians; rights or no rights.

Unfortunately, Palestine was occupied and that prevented them from exercising their rights. But again, occupations do not acquire sovereignty and cannot annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

That is not exactly correct. The Rule of Law says that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The Arab Palestinians did not have any territory to have integrity and sovereignty over.​

Most Respectfully,
R

External Reference:

Section 2: Acquisition of Territory [12]
The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.[13]
Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.
(1) Occupation
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).[15]
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.[16] Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.

I assume that peaceful means uncontested. Israel's military conquest of Palestine has never been peaceful and uncontested.

You mean the way most Arab nations deny the right of the US to exist?
I guess the US doesn't exist.