Palestine Today

[USAF 2023]

A village in danger of erasure

A photo essay of eliminating a village.

Maysam, 14, proudly gives a tour of al-Walaja village. “I love to be outside,” she says.
The picturesque Palestinian village of al-Walaja, located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, is known for its verdant landscape, agricultural terraces and numerous springs.

 

[USAF 2023]

Israeli settlers burned 300 olive trees owned by Palestinian farmers near #Nablus yesterday!

Palestine Observer

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, you quite often use that response.

This is a very broad statement. I'm not sure that it is actually true. The set of International laws are only those that are accepted as binding in relations between states.

No treaty or agreement can allow the violation of international law.

(COMMENT)

The bulk if the International Law are contained (but not limited to) in the list of Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), as well as the International Criminal Court - Rome Statues (ICC-RS), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCRP) and its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), form the so-called International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR).

The Jurisdiction of Statues within The International Court of Justice established by the Charter of the United Nations comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

1. the interpretation of a treaty;
2. any question of international law;
3. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
4. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

Then additionally, there are specialty courts, such as the Admiralty Courts. that hold jurisdiction over such laws as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (SM-ILAAACS).

Then, of course, there are the 19 basic Universal Legal Instruments Dealing with Terrorism (CT-Laws).

The International Law Commission generally focuses on the program areas of work:

• Crimes against humanity*
  
• Immunity of State officials from the foreign criminal jurisdiction;
  
• Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties
  
• Provisional application of treaties;
  
• Identification of customary international law
  
• Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts;
  
• Protection of the atmosphere;
  
• Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens);
  
• Succession of States in respect of State responsibility

The blanket statement that "No treaty or agreement can allow the violation of international law" must be in question, especially when it is used to justify acts and criminal behaviors conducted by an entity claiming to have governmental authority and mounting hostile operations against foreign civilian targets, against foreign powers, or terrorizing its own people.

The formulation of treaties is the BASIS of international law between States and prospective States.

It is true that the creation of international law is evolutionary. However, they cannot violate established rights.

(COMMENT)

Hummm... This is one of those political smoke screens. It is like saying Israel is not living-up to its Article 43 obligations (peace and security) when it is actually the Arab Palestinians that have incited violence and disrupted security. No one can argue this statement when its an allegation made by Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters.

PLO-NAD Position: State to State

• Israel’s obligations and Palestinian rights with respect to State-to-State issues are enumerated under customary and treaty international law, including the Charter of the UN, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations.
• Article 43 of the Hague Regulations requires the occupying power to “ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” This obligation is understood to engage a wide range of responsibility, including ensuring a stable commercial and economic life in the occupied territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

Where in all that verbosity do you refute my post?

(COMMENT)

As implied, out of all the laws I cited, you never once cited the authority for your position that a particular "international law" supports your theory that a treaty (which is a law) cannot violate an established "right."

Nor have you cited which "right" counters what "law" in any particular time frame.

So your statement is simply unsubstantiated by any fact. I've cited 30 sets of laws and more than 50 individual "rights." Which, if any, are in conflict. Finally, what principle makes. in the assessment of laws and treaties, one superior over the other?

There is nothing to refute because you provided nothing of substance. It may have sounded like you did, but that is not the case at all.

Be specific. What is in conflict with what?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, you quite often use that response.

This is a very broad statement. I'm not sure that it is actually true. The set of International laws are only those that are accepted as binding in relations between states.

No treaty or agreement can allow the violation of international law.

(COMMENT)

The bulk if the International Law are contained (but not limited to) in the list of Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), as well as the International Criminal Court - Rome Statues (ICC-RS), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCRP) and its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), form the so-called International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR).

The Jurisdiction of Statues within The International Court of Justice established by the Charter of the United Nations comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

1. the interpretation of a treaty;
2. any question of international law;
3. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
4. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

Then additionally, there are specialty courts, such as the Admiralty Courts. that hold jurisdiction over such laws as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (SM-ILAAACS).

Then, of course, there are the 19 basic Universal Legal Instruments Dealing with Terrorism (CT-Laws).

The International Law Commission generally focuses on the program areas of work:

• Crimes against humanity*
  
• Immunity of State officials from the foreign criminal jurisdiction;
  
• Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties
  
• Provisional application of treaties;
  
• Identification of customary international law
  
• Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts;
  
• Protection of the atmosphere;
  
• Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens);
  
• Succession of States in respect of State responsibility

The blanket statement that "No treaty or agreement can allow the violation of international law" must be in question, especially when it is used to justify acts and criminal behaviors conducted by an entity claiming to have governmental authority and mounting hostile operations against foreign civilian targets, against foreign powers, or terrorizing its own people.

The formulation of treaties is the BASIS of international law between States and prospective States.

It is true that the creation of international law is evolutionary. However, they cannot violate established rights.

(COMMENT)

Hummm... This is one of those political smoke screens. It is like saying Israel is not living-up to its Article 43 obligations (peace and security) when it is actually the Arab Palestinians that have incited violence and disrupted security. No one can argue this statement when its an allegation made by Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters.

PLO-NAD Position: State to State

• Israel’s obligations and Palestinian rights with respect to State-to-State issues are enumerated under customary and treaty international law, including the Charter of the UN, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations.
• Article 43 of the Hague Regulations requires the occupying power to “ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” This obligation is understood to engage a wide range of responsibility, including ensuring a stable commercial and economic life in the occupied territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

Where in all that verbosity do you refute my post?

(COMMENT)

As implied, out of all the laws I cited, you never once cited the authority for your position that a particular "international law" supports your theory that a treaty (which is a law) cannot violate an established "right."

Nor have you cited which "right" counters what "law" in any particular time frame.

So your statement is simply unsubstantiated by any fact. I've cited 30 sets of laws and more than 50 individual "rights." Which, if any, are in conflict. Finally, what principle makes. in the assessment of laws and treaties, one superior over the other?

There is nothing to refute because you provided nothing of substance. It may have sounded like you did, but that is not the case at all.

Be specific. What is in conflict with what?

Most Respectfully,
R

There are so many violations that it is hard to start. So lets start with Oslo and the settlements. Oslo does not forbid settlements. It merely places them as a "final status" issue. Israel interprets this to mean that settlements are legal until they are negotiated. Not true. What Oslo says or doesn't say is irrelevant. The settlements are illegal either way.

Israel is a settler colonial project. The goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. Many violations are required to realize that goal.

 

[Shusha]

So lets start with Oslo and the settlements. Oslo does not forbid settlements. It merely places them as a "final status" issue. Israel interprets this to mean that settlements are legal until they are negotiated. Not true. What Oslo says or doesn't say is irrelevant.

On the contrary, the negotiated treaty between Israel and the PA defines what is relevant and what is not. Israel, by treaty, has complete civil and military control over Area C. That means Israel has de facto and de jure sovereign control over that territory pending a final status treaty which changes it.

As you said, the treaty does not forbid Jewish people living in a place. (Which is a relief because that really WOULD contravene Article 53. As would any treaty which states that peoples of a specific ethnic group or religion are prevented from obtaining citizenship in a nation.)

Places where Jews live and places where Arabs live ("settlements") are completely irrelevant in the entire territory in absence of a border established by a negotiated and consensual treaty agreement. Except that one has to abide by the laws of the government which controls the area where you build. You can't squat in Area A any more than you can squat in Area C.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians: Why was Palestine not established between 1948 and 1967?


Interesting that none of them mentioned the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence. Probably because they were never told about it.

 

[Hollie]

Palestinians: Why was Palestine not established between 1948 and 1967?

You have repeatedly represented that the Treaty of Lausanne created the "country of Pally'land".

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[rylah]

=Interesting that none of them mentioned the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence. Probably because they were never told about it.

Probably because even Arabs didn't take that joke too seriously..

 

[P F Tinmore]

=Interesting that none of them mentioned the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence. Probably because they were never told about it.

Probably because even Arabs didn't take that joke too seriously..

Not really. The Palestinian state was recognized by five Arab states.

 

[rylah]

Palestinians: Why was Palestine not established between 1948 and 1967?

Because having an independent state wasn't their goal to begin with.
It was to spite the Jews, and give the country to a royal from Mecca as a part of a bigger Arab empire.

 

[rylah]

=Interesting that none of them mentioned the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence. Probably because they were never told about it.

Probably because even Arabs didn't take that joke too seriously..

Not really. The Palestinian state was recognized by five Arab states.

Wow, so 5 Arab states pat each other on the back saying "There's no Israel, no Israel, no Israel'
....AND closed the All Palestine govt themselves.

Quiet the comedy.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
SUB REF: Postings → • 4184 •• → •• 4186 •• → •• 4185 ••
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, this is one of your twists in the interpretation of agreements.

But just to supplement our friend "Shusha's" excellent response, you will note that the Palestinians (ie through Yassar Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, recognized by the Arab world as the sole legitimate representative) never once initiated procedures under the Article XV Dispute Resolution process on the matters related to the legitimacy of the settlement issues that are to this day, still subject to the Article V Permanent Status of Negotiations.

The why of this is a matter (refusal to participate in direct or indirect talks) for another time and another discussion. Suffice it to say that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have used the conditions for talks as a means to project external interference. The most resent HoAP strategy has been to claim that the deadlock on the peace process was due to the US decision regarding Jerusalem. Thus remaining issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest have not yet reached the high table.

Most everyone as heard the 2015 announcement by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas asserted that the PA was no longer bound by the Oslo Accords as well as all subsequent agreements between the PA and Israel.

There are so many violations that it is hard to start. So let's start with Oslo and the settlements. Oslo does not forbid settlements. It merely places them as a "final status" issue. Israel interprets this to mean that settlements are legal until they are negotiated. Not true. What Oslo says or doesn't say is irrelevant. The settlements are illegal either way.

Israel is a settler colonial project. The goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. Many violations are required to realize that goal.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords were an internationally recognized and accepts a set of agreements. So "legally" recognized and historical were these sets of agreements, that the principal parties (Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat) to the agreements were Awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

This issue of "colonial projects" is so ridiculous that even the UN doesn't agree with such an anti-Israeli interpretation. The Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) "exclusively devoted" to the issue of decolonization, [General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries (1960)], does NOT list any Middle Eastern Nation as under the purview of Resolution 1514 (XV). This would include an association with the Israeli-Palestinian Territories in conflict.

This allegation is bogus (totally bogus). The term "colonial" is sometimes used simply used by the layman for lack of a better word.

Palestinians: Why was Palestine not established between 1948 and 1967?
Interesting that none of them mentioned the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence. Probably because they were never told about it.

(COMMENT)

The 28 September 1948 All-Palestine Government (APG) diplomatic cablegram (A/C.1/330 14 October 1948) might have been significant had it not come three months after the Israeli Declaration of Independence, if it had not attempted to claim the entirety of the territory west of the Jordan River and to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied, and if it had not been a non-participating in the conflict. But as it was, there was no such entity involved in the Armistice Process in the first half of 1949. The APG was a non-existent → an imaginary government, formed by the illusion of a half-dozen people.

On the matter of the "1967 Borders." The Arab Palestinians start by defining the Border as:

The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.
​

First, they start off with the definition that the "which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line." There are but two Armistice Agreements that are applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

✪ PERTAINING TO THE WEST BANK •• Armistice agreement between the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Israel ••

Article VI →
9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

Article XII →
2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.
​

✪ PERTAINING TO THE GAZA STRIP •• Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel ••

Article V →
2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

Article XII →
2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.
​

​

The Peace Treaties concluded by the Israelis that dissolved the Armistice Agreements were:

• The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
• Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979) •

The entire attempt by the HoAP to claim that the Armistice Arrangements established some kind of "border" is again bogus. It is a political fallacy. The "war" between Israel and Egypt did not end until 1979, and the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel was established (Article II). Similarly, the "war" between Israel and Jordan ended in 1994; and the international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate (Article 3 as is shown in Annex I).

Until the conflict was resolved (1979 and 1994 respectively) the permanent boundaries could shift any number of times. This argument on boundaries and settlements is bogus.

Finally, there is the matter of sovereignty. Where do the HoAP maintain sovereignty? Where have they ever maintained sovereignty?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

This issue of "colonial projects" is so ridiculous that even the UN doesn't agree with such an anti-Israeli interpretation.

The settler colonial project is the only process that matches the facts on the ground. And remember, both the British and the Zionists openly called it colonialism all through the Mandate period.

 

[Shusha]

This issue of "colonial projects" is so ridiculous that even the UN doesn't agree with such an anti-Israeli interpretation.

The settler colonial project is the only process that matches the facts on the ground.

Only if you ignore one key "fact on the ground" -- which is the ORIGIN of the Jewish people in that territory. And you are going to want to be real clear on the difference between return and "settler colonial project" now that the roles have reversed and the Arab people want to live where they once lived. But all this is just a narrative with vague moral whining and a deliberate turning away from facts the don't appeal to your preconceived ideas.

Your claim is that Jewish people (or Israeli citizens) are prohibited from living in certain places and that your basis for this is a legal determination. So, again, make your case.

(Also, don't forget the other case I've asked you to defend -- which is that the Oslo Accords are void because they violate international law. What law do they violate? Be specific.)

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

This issue of "colonial projects" is so ridiculous that even the UN doesn't agree with such an anti-Israeli interpretation.

The settler colonial project is the only process that matches the facts on the ground.

Only if you ignore one key "fact on the ground" -- which is the ORIGIN of the Jewish people in that territory. And you are going to want to be real clear on the difference between return and "settler colonial project" now that the roles have reversed and the Arab people want to live where they once lived. But all this is just a narrative with vague moral whining and a deliberate turning away from facts the don't appeal to your preconceived ideas.

Your claim is that Jewish people (or Israeli citizens) are prohibited from living in certain places and that your basis for this is a legal determination. So, again, make your case.

(Also, don't forget the other case I've asked you to defend -- which is that the Oslo Accords are void because they violate international law. What law do they violate? Be specific.)

I'm sure you give no value to UN

 

[Shusha]

I'm sure you give no value to UN

The UN is virulently anti-semitic. But if you want to have a discussion about international law and certain UN resolutions, I'm game. Don't bother to bring up General Assembly resolutions, as they are non-binding. Other than that, feel free.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

I'm sure you give no value to UN

The UN is virulently anti-semitic. But if you want to have a discussion about international law and certain UN resolutions, I'm game. Don't bother to bring up General Assembly resolutions, as they are non-binding. Other than that, feel free.

The UN has recognized Israel's taking land as illegal. Yet you clame it is yours.

 

[Shusha]

I'm sure you give no value to UN

The UN is virulently anti-semitic. But if you want to have a discussion about international law and certain UN resolutions, I'm game. Don't bother to bring up General Assembly resolutions, as they are non-binding. Other than that, feel free.

The UN has recognized Israel's taking land as illegal. Yet you clame it is yours.

The UN has recognized Israel as a sovereign Nation. Since there is no other sovereign Nation in the territory, it can only be Israel's. There is no border or treaty or agreement to say which is Israel's and which belongs to another political entity. Except Oslo, which grants Israel full sovereign control over Area C. So what land does not belong to Israel that they are taking? And what legal instrument are you using to prove that there is a defined border between that place and Israel?

 

[Shusha]

Oh, and Israel actually does not claim Area C as hers. She claims it is disputed. She claims she has full civil and military control over it. Which is perfectly accurate.