Palestinian Authority seeks ICC war crimes case against Israel

[Phoenall]

'Help Israel avoid war crimes charges,' Netanyahu urges US lawmakers

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appealed to American legislators to help Israel stave off what is likely to be a concerted global push to haul the country’s military and political leaders to international courts for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, The New York Post reported on Thursday.

According to the Post, during a meeting on Wednesday with members of Congress who are visiting Israel as guests of AIPAC, Netanyahu urged the American representatives to summon their powers in assisting Israeli officials who wish to avoid trial by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

'Help Israel avoid war crimes charges,' Netanyahu urges US lawmakers | JPost | Israel News

Off topic and irrelevant to the topics under discussion. But I for one would like to see the evidence laid bare at the ICC and the Palestinian leadership arrested for war crimes, crimes against humanity and murder.

 

[Phoenall]

If the Israelis are innocent then they should look forward to proving that what they did, and the tactics they employed, were within the limits of international law!

They are trying to save the Palestinian leadership from being arrested and sent to prison for life. As the saying goes better the devil you know...........

 

[fanger]

'Help Israel avoid war crimes charges,' Netanyahu urges US lawmakers

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appealed to American legislators to help Israel stave off what is likely to be a concerted global push to haul the country’s military and political leaders to international courts for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, The New York Post reported on Thursday.

According to the Post, during a meeting on Wednesday with members of Congress who are visiting Israel as guests of AIPAC, Netanyahu urged the American representatives to summon their powers in assisting Israeli officials who wish to avoid trial by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

'Help Israel avoid war crimes charges,' Netanyahu urges US lawmakers | JPost | Israel News

Off topic and irrelevant to the topics under discussion. But I for one would like to see the evidence laid bare at the ICC and the Palestinian leadership arrested for war crimes, crimes against humanity and murder.

The thread is.........

Palestinian Authority seeks ICC war crimes case against Israel

I for one would like to see the evidence laid bare at the ICC and the Guilty parties arrested for war crimes, crimes against humanity and murder.
There, Fixed it 4 you

 

[fanger]

Israeli soldiers have been speaking out against Israel’s policy in Gaza ever since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew its military from Gaza for a 72-hour ceasefire.

“There are a lot of soldiers who come back and say to themselves, 'What the hell are we doing here? Why are we using so much force? Why are we treating them this way?'” Yehuda Shaul, co-founder of Breaking the Silence, an organization of veteran Israeli combatants, told RT.

On Tuesday, Israel announced its mission in the Gaza Strip had been accomplished after destroying Hamas tunnels and hideouts. According to the UN over 1,800 Palestinians had been killed as a result of the conflict, the majority civilians.

Those fighting on the Gaza strip were shocked by the repeated shelling of UN facilities meant to protect innocent Gaza civilians, RT reports. The conflict left many soldiers overwhelmed, causing many to raise questions concerning the regard for following principles of international law.

Israeli Soldiers Appalled by Israel?s Policy in Gaza | World | RIA Novosti

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

You have to understand that our friend "P F Tinmore" is arguing from the position that ALL of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine in 1948, is Palestine (including Israel). Palestine, in his view, is the greater claim that encompasses all. Israel is an intrusion on to Palestinian Sovereignty (All of the former Mandate Territory).

It is the position of HAMAS as replicated in the Covenant, and it is the position of the Palestinian Authority as replicated in the Charter.


(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore's position is, that from the frontier of Egypt, to the frontier of Lebanon is all Palestine; with no borders in between. And in some respects, this is true. There are no documented borders. This is not to say that in reality, the international community doesn't recognized that Israel has "jurisdiction" and "effective control."

However, my argument is based on the fact that the "Tinmore Claim" is merely a claim unrealized. At no time has the Arab Palestinian demonstrated clear and unambiguous sovereignty, control, or leadership over any of the territory since before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. That the claim itself if fallacious and un-demonstrable in any real and concrete sense. Even today, the chaotic government called the "State of Palestine" is a loosely connected (so called) "Unity Government" consisting of HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Fatah; as demonstrated in Cairo this past week in the negotiation over a ceasefire. This is not a real demonstration of "jurisdiction" and "effective control."

Let me say this again, not since before the Ottoman Empire has the Arab Palestinian demonstrated any "jurisdiction" and "effective control" of any territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the frontier of Lebanon to the frontier of Egypt; not for a thousand years and not today.

It is illusionary.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, the Palestinians lost their rights to the land when the West defeated the Ottomans?

Keep dancing for Zion Rocco, screw indigenous rights no matter who controls the land. A sure Recipe for War!

NO the arab muslims lost their rights to the land when they were defeated in battle over 1,000 years ago. Since that time they have had no legal right to the land other than that given in UN res 181. At the time of the end of the mandate the Palestinian arab muslims owned less than 1% of the whole of Palestine. The Christians owned slightly more that 1% while the Jews owned 7%, the rest was in LoN ownership.

By the way the evidence points to the arab muslims being recent migrants to Palestine as under Ottoman ownership the arab muslims were loathe to migrate to a dead desolate land with no inhabitants but Jews and Christians.

If you think your money is going to wrest indigenous rights to the land you are mistaken...

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

I did not speak to the issue of "rights" --- indigenous or otherwise, in my post (not at all). I spoke of "sovereignty, jurisdiction, and effective control."

So, the Palestinians lost their rights to the land when the West defeated the Ottomans?

Keep dancing for Zion Rocco, screw indigenous rights no matter who controls the land. A sure Recipe for War!

(COMMENT)

But since you mention "rights." ----

Without regard to what anyone else says, the Arab Palestinian had "NO RIGHTS" (indigenous, inalienable or otherwise), prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire; absolutely none. They had the law of the Sultan of the Empire; discretionary permissions, and practices that were allowed under The Kanun (secular legal system for non-Muslims), Sharia (Religious Law for Muslims), edicts and decrees under the form of justice crafted by Suleyman the Lawgiver.

The Western Cultures introduce the Arabs to "inherent and inalienable" rights of man.

The Arab Palestinian "rights" have been exercised by them over and over again since the fall of the Ottoman Empire; usually in the negative sense (declinations) but occasionally in the affirmative sense (as in the ascension to be admitted to the Jordanian Parliament and Annexed). But the Arab Palestinian never lost "rights" --- merely exercised them poorly; absent of sound judgment and with adverse consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

If the Israelis are innocent then they should look forward to proving that what they did, and the tactics they employed, were within the limits of international law!

And will those, who gets to decide, provide the heavenly credentials that they're holier than the pope? hehehe

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

I did not speak to the issue of "rights" --- indigenous or otherwise, in my post (not at all). I spoke of "sovereignty, jurisdiction, and effective control."

So, the Palestinians lost their rights to the land when the West defeated the Ottomans?

Keep dancing for Zion Rocco, screw indigenous rights no matter who controls the land. A sure Recipe for War!

(COMMENT)

But since you mention "rights." ----

Without regard to what anyone else says, the Arab Palestinian had "NO RIGHTS" (indigenous, inalienable or otherwise), prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire; absolutely none. They had the law of the Sultan of the Empire; discretionary permissions, and practices that were allowed under The Kanun (secular legal system for non-Muslims), Sharia (Religious Law for Muslims), edicts and decrees under the form of justice crafted by Suleyman the Lawgiver.

The Western Cultures introduce the Arabs to "inherent and inalienable" rights of man.

The Arab Palestinian "rights" have been exercised by them over and over again since the fall of the Ottoman Empire; usually in the negative sense (declinations) but occasionally in the affirmative sense (as in the ascension to be admitted to the Jordanian Parliament and Annexed). But the Arab Palestinian never lost "rights" --- merely exercised them poorly; absent of sound judgment and with adverse consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

You're saying that the Palestinians had no indigenous rights under the UN in 1948? Provide a link.

 

[docmauser1]

“There are a lot of soldiers who come back and say to themselves, 'What the hell are we doing here? Why are we using so much force? Why are we treating them this way?'” Yehuda Shaul, co-founder of Breaking the Silence, an organization of veteran Israeli combatants, told RT." Israeli Soldiers Appalled by Israel?s Policy in Gaza | World | RIA Novosti

Same bullshit, different day and venue.That's the problem with all of these anti-Israel NGOs. They depend on funding to exist, and the funding comes from sources, that want them to justify their existence by pushing the agenda of the funders, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

You're saying that the Palestinians had no indigenous rights under the UN in 1948? Provide a link.

Since when arab settlers and squatters became "indigenous"?

 

[fanger]

pbel, et al,

I did not speak to the issue of "rights" --- indigenous or otherwise, in my post (not at all). I spoke of "sovereignty, jurisdiction, and effective control."

So, the Palestinians lost their rights to the land when the West defeated the Ottomans?

Keep dancing for Zion Rocco, screw indigenous rights no matter who controls the land. A sure Recipe for War!

(COMMENT)

But since you mention "rights." ----

Without regard to what anyone else says, the Arab Palestinian had "NO RIGHTS" (indigenous, inalienable or otherwise), prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire; absolutely none. They had the law of the Sultan of the Empire; discretionary permissions, and practices that were allowed under The Kanun (secular legal system for non-Muslims), Sharia (Religious Law for Muslims), edicts and decrees under the form of justice crafted by Suleyman the Lawgiver.

The Western Cultures introduce the Arabs to "inherent and inalienable" rights of man.

The Arab Palestinian "rights" have been exercised by them over and over again since the fall of the Ottoman Empire; usually in the negative sense (declinations) but occasionally in the affirmative sense (as in the ascension to be admitted to the Jordanian Parliament and Annexed). But the Arab Palestinian never lost "rights" --- merely exercised them poorly; absent of sound judgment and with adverse consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

 

[Billo_Really]

By the way the evidence points to the arab muslims being recent migrants to Palestine as under Ottoman ownership the arab muslims were loathe to migrate to a dead desolate land with no inhabitants but Jews and Christians.

Here's the official immigration records during the 1920's.





Now which group imported more people?

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_IIoIdZGA]UN's Investigation of Israel Should Go Beyond War Crimes to Genocide - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

[MENTION=49167]fanger[/MENTION] et al,

And just what did "civil and religious rights" mean to an Englishman writing in 1917?

pbel, et al,

I did not speak to the issue of "rights" --- indigenous or otherwise, in my post (not at all). I spoke of "sovereignty, jurisdiction, and effective control."

So, the Palestinians lost their rights to the land when the West defeated the Ottomans?

Keep dancing for Zion Rocco, screw indigenous rights no matter who controls the land. A sure Recipe for War!

(COMMENT)

But since you mention "rights." ----

Without regard to what anyone else says, the Arab Palestinian had "NO RIGHTS" (indigenous, inalienable or otherwise), prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire; absolutely none. They had the law of the Sultan of the Empire; discretionary permissions, and practices that were allowed under The Kanun (secular legal system for non-Muslims), Sharia (Religious Law for Muslims), edicts and decrees under the form of justice crafted by Suleyman the Lawgiver.

The Western Cultures introduce the Arabs to "inherent and inalienable" rights of man.

The Arab Palestinian "rights" have been exercised by them over and over again since the fall of the Ottoman Empire; usually in the negative sense (declinations) but occasionally in the affirmative sense (as in the ascension to be admitted to the Jordanian Parliament and Annexed). But the Arab Palestinian never lost "rights" --- merely exercised them poorly; absent of sound judgment and with adverse consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

(COMMENT)

We have a tendency to assign 21st Century definitions to 19th Century/early 20th Century phrases. It doesn't always translate correctly. Remember, Lord Balfour graduated from Cambridge in 1869; just after the American Civil War over States Rights and Slavery. While the idea of "religious rights" (freedom to worship) was pretty firmly ground out, the idea of "civil rights" (translated today we might better say "Human Rights" for international audiences and purposes) was still in its infancy. And it really wasn't for another four decades after the Balfour Declaration that recognition was given to the "inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." (December 1948) It wasn't until 1960 that Decolonization was adopted, and still 1994 for realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, and still later in 2007 that Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was made. (The US did not pass the Civil Rights Act until 1964; nearly a half Century after the Balfour Declaration.)

In 1917, civil rights were limited to guarantees of citizenship, residency, personal property, and equality under the law. Depending on where you were in the world, there could be a few more or less.

But do not attempt to assign 21st century rights to the intent behind the phrase in the Balfour Declaration. Humanity wasn't there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore's position is, that from the frontier of Egypt, to the frontier of Lebanon is all Palestine; with no borders in between. And in some respects, this is true. There are no documented borders.

Indeed, you are 100% correct.

This is not to say that in reality, the international community doesn't recognized that Israel has "jurisdiction" and "effective control."

Of course you realize that "effective control" is a term used to define an occupation.

Thank you for your post.
Paul

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are just two points that need clarification.

P F Tinmore's position is, that from the frontier of Egypt, to the frontier of Lebanon is all Palestine; with no borders in between. And in some respects, this is true. There are no documented borders.

Indeed, you are 100% correct.

This is not to say that in reality, the international community doesn't recognized that Israel has "jurisdiction" and "effective control."

Of course you realize that "effective control" is a term used to define an occupation.

Thank you for your post.
Paul

(OBSERVATION)

B-RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS

As mentioned above the third criteria of the statehood is an “effective government”, therefore a decision to recognise a new State generally includes the recognition of government. They might be seen as similar concepts; however, recognition of a government is different from recognition of a State. Recognition of government would be discussed where the change of the government is unconstitutional. In practice, the effective control of the new government over the territory is a preferable criterion for the recognition but it requires being settled and likely to continue. The other difference is that, the recognition of a State is about its legal personality on the other hand recognition of a government is relevant to the status of the administrative authority.

Effective control has a common use but it is not the only approach for the recognition of government, the Tobar doctrine handles it in a different way. According to Tobar doctrine, an unconstitutional change of the government should be recognised only when the people accept it. This was used by United States in Central America especially in order to protect stability.

b) territory; the second qualification is territory where the permanent population live on. However, there is not a necessity of having well- established boundaries as the International Court of Justice said in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, “ ... there is... no rule that the land frontiers of a state must be fully delimited and defined”. The well known example is the uncertainty of the land frontiers of Israel when it was admitted as a State.

SOURCE: NURULLAH YAMALI JUDGE GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF JUSTICE TURKEY

(COMMENT)

The phrase "effective control" is use in the explanation of both "Occupation" and "Government."

Second, the delimitation of fixed boundaries is not a legal requirement to be a state.

Most Respectfully,
R