Palestine Today

[Shusha]

[
The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

Your obsession with the nonsensical term "land treaties" is getting just a little bit ridiculous.

The San Remo Conference and the Balfour Declaration (as made into law by the Mandate for Palestine) were treaties acknowledging the existing rights of a specific People (the Jewish people).

You know how you are always arguing that the UNGA and UNSC resolutions acknowledge the existing rights of the Palestinian people? Yeah, that. Its the same.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

By declaring independence, which was recognized by most of the world. It was not a country before.

It is now ,however, whether you like it or not Tinmore. Israel is a legit country, part of the United Nations, and recognized by most of the globe, except of course Islamic scum...and there is nothing you can do about it,

declaring independence

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Link?

The British, who controlled the territory at the time, voted to partition the land. Jews accepted, Arabs rejected. When the Arabs rejected, and saw that Jews were starting to build their country, they (Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) attacked Israel and lost the war.

Here's your link:

How did Israel become a country in the first place?

Had the Arabs not attacked, Palestinians would have their own country. You can't start a war, then whine when the people you attacked use that very land to start their own country.

The British, who controlled the territory at the time, voted to partition the land.

The Mandates never acquired sovereignty. They had no authority to divide territory.

Had the Arabs not attacked, Palestinians would have their own country.

The Palestinians attacked?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Once again, you ask the most interesting questions, but will inevitably refuse to deal with the answers.

Sovereignty can ABSOLUTELY be acquired by unilateral declaration. That is actually HOW it happens. That is HOW new States come into being. They unilaterally declare independence. The entire foundation of the laws between States literally rests upon this principle.

Now, you are trying to conflate "acquisition of territory" with "sovereignty". (Its a distraction. And you aren't fooling anyone.) Still, since you brought it up, let's talk about "the acquisition of territory".

Your question supposes that in order to apply sovereignty, one must first legally acquire territory. (I'd argue that is a false assumption. In order to apply sovereignty to a specific territory, one must be able to apply actual, facts-on-the-ground, real, measurable, effective control of the territory.) But let's go with your assumption.

Territory can change hands in a number of ways. It can be abandoned entirely. It can be ceded specifically. It can be negotiated in treaties.

The territory of Palestine was abandoned entirely. It was no longer under the sovereignty of any State.

So here is where you won't acknowledge the reality which you actually presented with your question: in a territory where there is an absolute ABSENCE of sovereignty, how else can sovereignty be obtained EXCEPT through unilateral declaration?

The territory of Palestine was abandoned entirely. It was no longer under the sovereignty of any State.

Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. Governments or states are not required. The Palestinians have never abandoned their territory.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Once again, you ask the most interesting questions, but will inevitably refuse to deal with the answers.

Sovereignty can ABSOLUTELY be acquired by unilateral declaration. That is actually HOW it happens. That is HOW new States come into being. They unilaterally declare independence. The entire foundation of the laws between States literally rests upon this principle.

Now, you are trying to conflate "acquisition of territory" with "sovereignty". (Its a distraction. And you aren't fooling anyone.) Still, since you brought it up, let's talk about "the acquisition of territory".

Your question supposes that in order to apply sovereignty, one must first legally acquire territory. (I'd argue that is a false assumption. In order to apply sovereignty to a specific territory, one must be able to apply actual, facts-on-the-ground, real, measurable, effective control of the territory.) But let's go with your assumption.

Territory can change hands in a number of ways. It can be abandoned entirely. It can be ceded specifically. It can be negotiated in treaties.

The territory of Palestine was abandoned entirely. It was no longer under the sovereignty of any State.

So here is where you won't acknowledge the reality which you actually presented with your question: in a territory where there is an absolute ABSENCE of sovereignty, how else can sovereignty be obtained EXCEPT through unilateral declaration?

When the United States and the Latin American countries declared independence, weren't those unilateral moves? Did Britain and Spain support those declarations at the time? Did the world vote on them, like it did with Israel?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I just don't understand why we keep going back to 1948, when we are 3 generations beyond that point. It would be better if we tried to find a solution to the problem of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples right here, and right now. And they are 2 distinct peoples now.

 

[rylah]

I just don't understand why we keep going back to 1948, when we are 3 generations beyond that point. It would be better if we tried to find a solution to the problem of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples right here, and right now. And they are 2 distinct peoples now.

The word 'peace' doesn't exist in Arabic.
The word 'Islam' comes from the root S-L-M, as in 'Salam' - means SUBMISSION.

Arabs never had peace among themselves, can't give it to anyone,
and neither know what it means.

 

[USAF 2023]

I just don't understand why we keep going back to 1948, when we are 3 generations beyond that point. It would be better if we tried to find a solution to the problem of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples right here, and right now. And they are 2 distinct peoples now.

Because Tinmore can’t get over 1948.

 

[rylah]

I just don't understand why we keep going back to 1948, when we are 3 generations beyond that point. It would be better if we tried to find a solution to the problem of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples right here, and right now. And they are 2 distinct peoples now.

Because Tinmore can’t get over 1948.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I just don't understand why we keep going back to 1948, when we are 3 generations beyond that point. It would be better if we tried to find a solution to the problem of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples right here, and right now. And they are 2 distinct peoples now.

The word 'peace' doesn't exist in Arabic.
The word 'Islam' comes from the root S-L-M, as in 'Salam' - means SUBMISSION.

Arabs never had peace among themselves, can't give it to anyone,
and neither know what it means.

Do you have a graph with the comparisons? I know that a million died in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's, about a quarter-million in the Syrian Civil War so far, and there's a war also going on in Yemen right now.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm of a mind that the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians believed that the 1948New State of Israel was going to be destroyed. But their expectations were not the result.

Had the Arabs not attacked, Palestinians would have their own country.

The Palestinians attacked?

(COMMENT)

I believe our friend "toastman" has it right. Had the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League accepted the A/RES/181 (II) Recommendations, there would have been a two-state solution already in place. But the greedy and selfish Arab elements turned the reality down a differing path. A path that leads us here.

I don't really think that the Arab League Leaders had any intention of creating a new Arab State, but were intending to carve-up the former Mandate territory amongst themselves.

The fact that the Israelis made such a fight of it, the Arab League had to alter their plans. The fact that the Arab League failed, is the proximate cause of all the sniveling and whining by the Arab Palestinians over the lost expectations.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Once again, you ask the most interesting questions, but will inevitably refuse to deal with the answers.

Sovereignty can ABSOLUTELY be acquired by unilateral declaration. That is actually HOW it happens. That is HOW new States come into being. They unilaterally declare independence. The entire foundation of the laws between States literally rests upon this principle.

Now, you are trying to conflate "acquisition of territory" with "sovereignty". (Its a distraction. And you aren't fooling anyone.) Still, since you brought it up, let's talk about "the acquisition of territory".

Your question supposes that in order to apply sovereignty, one must first legally acquire territory. (I'd argue that is a false assumption. In order to apply sovereignty to a specific territory, one must be able to apply actual, facts-on-the-ground, real, measurable, effective control of the territory.) But let's go with your assumption.

Territory can change hands in a number of ways. It can be abandoned entirely. It can be ceded specifically. It can be negotiated in treaties.

The territory of Palestine was abandoned entirely. It was no longer under the sovereignty of any State.

So here is where you won't acknowledge the reality which you actually presented with your question: in a territory where there is an absolute ABSENCE of sovereignty, how else can sovereignty be obtained EXCEPT through unilateral declaration?

When the United States and the Latin American countries declared independence, weren't those unilateral moves? Did Britain and Spain support those declarations at the time? Did the world vote on them, like it did with Israel?

When the United States and the Latin American countries declared independence, weren't those unilateral moves?

Yes they were. However, back then there was no international law. Since then, the world has moved on to a more civilized world. Conquest is no longer acceptable. Israel is living in the past.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm of a mind that the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians believed that the 1948New State of Israel was going to be destroyed. But their expectations were not the result.

Had the Arabs not attacked, Palestinians would have their own country.

The Palestinians attacked?

(COMMENT)

I believe our friend "toastman" has it right. Had the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League accepted the A/RES/181 (II) Recommendations, there would have been a two-state solution already in place. But the greedy and selfish Arab elements turned the reality down a differing path. A path that leads us here.

I don't really think that the Arab League Leaders had any intention of creating a new Arab State, but were intending to carve-up the former Mandate territory amongst themselves.

The fact that the Israelis made such a fight of it, the Arab League had to alter their plans. The fact that the Arab League failed, is the proximate cause of all the sniveling and whining by the Arab Palestinians over the lost expectations.


Most Respectfully,
R

Is deflection all you got?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ et al,

So, would someone be so kind as to what "issue" I am shifting away from...

You are still shifting away from the issues she presented.

(COMMENT)

What is the issue he is talking about?

◈ I addressed the central issue to the accusation of "Apartheid" and "Racism."

◈ I addressed the issue that the Arab Palestinians violate the very international laws as a criminal party and not a protected person.​

Most Respectfully,
R

This will give more clarity. Explains the system of apartheid.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Which of them are more developed → that are scientifically, technologically, and educationally productive than Israel.

Which one in your list gets more money and technical assistance than Israel gets-?
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

This will give more clarity.

Is Israel an Apartheid State-?

a·part·heid
a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.segregation on grounds other than race.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES​

The most racist, apartheid state on this planet
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

For the sake of clarity, there is only one Country that has an official policy of assassinating children; only one

Anyone care to guess which country that is-?

-

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

U.N. vote. ???

Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented. There was no allotted territory.

What else you got?

United Nations Resolution 181, resolution passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”) to be governed by a special international regime. The resolution—which was considered by the Jewish community in Palestine to be a legal basis for the establishment of Israel, and which was rejected by the Arab community—was succeeded almost immediately by violence.

What else you got?

YAWN.,,,, No answer from Tinmore. When all he can do is respond with a “ Smiley Face” that says it all
He’s not rebutting it because he can’t

 

[Shusha]

Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. Governments or states are not required. The Palestinians have never abandoned their territory.

Neither the Jewish Palestinians nor the Arab Palestinians have abandoned their territory. Hence the conflict between them.

And while its not strictly true that sovereignty is in the hands of the people, I agree, generally, with the concept. So, going back to your original question ("territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?"), of course it can. The people, who hold sovereignty, unilaterally declare that sovereignty. They don't have it granted to them by others. They don't wait for others to recognize them. They simply declare it.

Israel did it in 1948. Palestine did it in 1988.

 

[Shusha]

Yes they were. However, back then there was no international law. Since then, the world has moved on to a more civilized world. Conquest is no longer acceptable. Israel is living in the past.

Can you point to me exactly what year it became "illegal" to unilaterally declare independence?

 

[Shusha]

This will give more clarity.

Is Israel an Apartheid State-?

a·part·heid
a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.segregation on grounds other than race.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES​

The most racist, apartheid state on this planet
-

There is no policy or system of segregation or discrimination based on race (or ethnicity) in Israel.