Palestinians want more then the " 67 borders"

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, one of the principle purposes of the Mandate System (League of Nations) and the International Trusteeship System (UN Charter), is to set the condition and the environment such that a progressive development towards self-government or independence can be achieved. It is definitely not an end run around the abolishment of colonial policy.


(COMMENT)

Mandates (Types "A" "B" and "C"), as well as Trusteeships have varying degrees of control; and with that control --- comes responsibility.

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

Both Mandates (of old) and International Trusteeships (Chapter XIIs of which there are none today), have differing degrees of problems and complexities. Nearly half of the territories under protectorate status demanded sovereignty before they are ready and become either troubled or failed states. And the states in North Africa and Middle East have had their fair share of difficulties. Even today, most of the troubled states were once Mandates: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen; and, of course, the State of Palestine. It hasn't been all that long since Lebanon put-up its guns and reached a calmer state - yet a quarter of it is still terrorist controlled.

Oddly enough, the two most stable countries are Israel and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

Show me a map of their sovereign state that you are talking about Timmore. Show all of us

You have that back assward. A sovereign state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

 

[proudveteran06]

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

Show me a map of their sovereign state that you are talking about Timmore. Show all of us

You have that back assward. A sovereign state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

Translation; " Palestine" doesn't exist . It's a generalized territory ; Not a " country. ".

 

[toastman]

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

Show me a map of their sovereign state that you are talking about Timmore. Show all of us

You have that back assward. A sovereign state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

Uhh all I asked you for a map of what YOU said was the whole Palestinian sovereign state. So I dont know where your response comes from.
Just say you cant produce a map next time

 

[P F Tinmore]

Show me a map of their sovereign state that you are talking about Timmore. Show all of us

You have that back assward. A sovereign state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

Uhh all I asked you for a map of what YOU said was the whole Palestinian sovereign state. So I dont know where your response comes from.
Just say you cant produce a map next time

Where did I say they had a sovereign state?

 

[Hossfly]

You have that back assward. A sovereign state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

Uhh all I asked you for a map of what YOU said was the whole Palestinian sovereign state. So I dont know where your response comes from.
Just say you cant produce a map next time

Where did I say they had a sovereign state?

Stop fencing, Tinmore and produce a map.

 

[aris2chat]

Uhh all I asked you for a map of what YOU said was the whole Palestinian sovereign state. So I dont know where your response comes from.
Just say you cant produce a map next time

Where did I say they had a sovereign state?

Stop fencing, Tinmore and produce a map.

the whole middle east was a creation from carving up the failed Ottoman empire.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I had to think about this for a while.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, one of the principle purposes of the Mandate System (League of Nations) and the International Trusteeship System (UN Charter), is to set the condition and the environment such that a progressive development towards self-government or independence can be achieved. It is definitely not an end run around the abolishment of colonial policy.

There is a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of control. When people see that someone controls a territory they think it means that it is their territory.

People believe that the mandate was Palestine (being owned by Britain) and when the mandate ended there was no more Palestine.

Thank you for clarifying the point that the mandates (British or French) never claimed any territory of the mandates.

(COMMENT)

Mandates (Types "A" "B" and "C"), as well as Trusteeships have varying degrees of control; and with that control --- comes responsibility.

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

Both Mandates (of old) and International Trusteeships (Chapter XIIs of which there are none today), have differing degrees of problems and complexities. Nearly half of the territories under protectorate status demanded sovereignty before they are ready and become either troubled or failed states. And the states in North Africa and Middle East have had their fair share of difficulties. Even today, most of the troubled states were once Mandates: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen; and, of course, the State of Palestine. It hasn't been all that long since Lebanon put-up its guns and reached a calmer state - yet a quarter of it is still terrorist controlled.

Oddly enough, the two most stable countries are Israel and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe the Mandatory (UK) consistently moved the Arab Palestinian away from establishing independence or otherwise executing their rights to self-government. Instead, what I see, is evidence that even up to today, the Arab Palestinian has consistently demonstrated that it is not yet capable of establishing a government able to stand alone; that is not a danger to regional peace and security.

It is not a violation of the Mandate (whatever that really means) to support independence for the Arab Palestinian if they could not demonstrate themselves capable of handling autonomous or self-governing institutions to build an infrastructure capable of standing alone. And in retrospect, over the last half-century, the Arab Palestinian actions has demonstrated that they cannot.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo, then why has t Hamas removed that from their charter??

Why would they recognize Israel, when Israel won't recognize them?

Hamas has said once Israel ends the occupation/blockade and demonstrates over a period of time that they will not violate Gazan air space, territorial waters or Gaza proper, then they'll revise the Charter and make it current to international standards.

Ergo, nothing is going to happen until Israel ends its occupation, blockade and aggression.

And stop lying about Hamas, they have consistently said they are against a treaty and that they are only interested in 'liberating' all the land from the river to the sea.

I'm not sure what comment of mine you are referring to as a "lie", but Hamas has not "consistently" said that. They have said that, yes. But they've also stated they're willing to accept a two-state solution. But hey, if cherry-picking their statements make you feel better about British Columbia, then be my guest.

 

[Billo_Really]

You just lost the farm as the LAW is clear on illegal gun running and terrorist activity. Any such will be met with force and if necessary blockades and sanctions.

So are you saying Gazan's do not have a right to defend themselves?

Because you need guns to do that. Why is it illegal for them to have guns?

Now since when has gaza been occupied as in August 2005 Israel complied with the first part of Oslo and withdrew all Israelis from gaza. Not one Israeli soldier is occupying gaza and the hamas leaders have said this time after time.

You do not have to have a standing army, for the territory to be un occupation. Israel still maintains "effective control" of the area and therefore, it is considered under IHL, an "occupation".

Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approximately one year after the event, the UN investigative committee for the 2010 Flotilla to Gaza concluded that (1) the blockade is legal, (2) Israel was "justified in stopping vessels even outside its territorial waters," (3) Israel's decision to board the vessels with such force was "excessive," (4) Israeli forces "faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers" that required them to use force for their own protection, and (5) the loss of nine lives was "unacceptable

That is the Palmer Commission report and as I told Sweet_Caroline , its purpose was not to determine the legality of the blockade.

Here's a few quick things about that report:

1) Members of the commission had a definite conflict of interest...

The Panel consisted of Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Chair), President Alvaro Uribe (Vice-Chair) and the representatives from Israel and Turkey, Mr Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar and Mr Süleyman Özdem Sanberk. There were surprised reactions to the appointment of Mr Uribe who is accused of responsibility for widespread human rights violations during his period of office as President of Columbia. More relevant here are his associations with Israel. During his term of office Israel was Columbia’s top weapons supplier, while the American Jewish Committee gave him its ‘Light Unto The Nations’ award in 2007. This apparent conflict of interest is not addressed in the UN Panel’s report.

2) The commission did not interview any witnesses from the incident...

Installed in UN Headquarters in New York far from the site of the incident, the Panel did not see any exhibits or meet any witnesses, but has based its findings on information provided by the two delegations in the dispute.

Which means they based their "opinion", in part, on Israel's bullshit, damage control, propaganda.

3) The report was an "opinion" piece, not a legal document...

The report repeatedly makes it clear that the Panel was not a court. The result is effectively an opinion of the leadership, with the qualified partisan support from their colleagues.

4) The commission based part of it's findings on a flawed Israeli report...

Summary of Israel’s National Investigation

Israel’s summary was based on the Turkel Commission’s report for which the Panel notes that original material was not provided.

It also observes that Turkel has completely ignored the report of the UNHRC FFM (to which it formed an opposing opinion on the legality of the blockade).

Of further concern is the Panel’s careless reading of Turkel. In para. 47 (a) it refers to “statements by various United Nations organizations” supporting Turkel’s position that the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an “international armed conflict”. In fact Turkel only cites the one UN report written by Special Rapporteur John Dugard in which the author declares that the Gaza Strip remains occupied territory.

All the other UN reports say it is "not an armed conflict".

5) The commissions findings on the blockade dependent on false facts...

The Naval Blockade

In para.70 it erroneously states that “the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted” when in fact Ms Feldman explained to Turkel that all maritime commercial traffic to Gaza had been prohibited by varying procedures since the occupation began in 1967. This gives the lie to the Panel’s statement later in the paragraph that “the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods.” The blockade was only imposed after the Free Gaza Movement began to sail regularly to Gaza during 2008 in defiance of Israeli restrictions. It was to prevent this humanitarian traffic that Israel applied the blockade which the UNHRC FFM has since declared to be illegal. It follows that the Panel’s reasoning in para.77 that the naval blockade was not imposed to punish the people of Gaza for the election of Hamas is unconvincing.

That UNHRC FFM report, was the one I was referring to earlier.

There's more, but you get the message.

Now you and Sweet_Caroline need to stop using that bullshit report as proof.

Some, such as law experts Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, Chicago Law School Professor Eric Posner, and Johns Hopkins International Law and Diplomacy Professor Ruth Wedgwood, said that the naval blockade, the boarding in international waters, and the use of force were in accord with long-standing international law.[7][8][9] Dershowitz compared the blockade with the U.S. blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Posner with the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War

Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote that the legality of blockades as a response to acts of war “is not subject to serious doubt.”[7] He likened Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza to U.S. naval actions in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the U.S. had deemed lawful though not part of an armed conflict.[7]

Similarly, Allen Weiner, former U.S. State Department attorney and legal counselor at the American Embassy in The Hague, and now a Stanford Law School professor, said "the Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal".[27]

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to [Hamas]".[9]


Blockade in American Civil War


Cartoon map of Union blockade of Confederacy during U.S. Civil War
Eric Posner, international law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noting that the raid had "led to wild accusations of illegality", wrote that blockades are lawful during times of armed conflict (such as the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War), and that "war-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas".[8] He compared Israel's blockade to the Union blockade by the Union against the Confederacy (a non-state) during the U.S. Civil War.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the legitimacy of that blockade.[8]

Philip Roche, a partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with the London-headquartered international law firm Norton Rose, also said: "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza, and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal."[1] The basis for that is the law of blockade, derived from international law that was codified in the 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, and which was then updated in 1994 in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea--"a legally recognized document".[1] He addressed the charge by Human Rights Watch that the blockade of a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against civilians, ostensibly violating Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, by saying "This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanctions are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own."[8]

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic.[28] He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations.[28]


Oslo Accords 1993, hands shaking


Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony in 1993
He wrote:


Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.[28]

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.'"[2]

Abbas Al Lawati, a Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, opined that Israel is likely to cite the Gaza–Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza.[22] The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity.[29]

Professor Wedgwood opined that the goal of the flotilla was to: "denude Israel of what it thinks it was guaranteed in the 1993 Oslo Accords which preceded the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, which is the control of the external borders of Gaza and West Bank.... The problem ... is that you could easily have a rearming of Hamas, which caused a terrible conflict."[9]

That is just "opinion", not IHL.

BTW, stop pointing to the Oslo Accords, because they're not enforceable. They became "null and void" when Israel was found in breech of them.

 

[Phoenall]

You have that back assward. A sovereign state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.

Uhh all I asked you for a map of what YOU said was the whole Palestinian sovereign state. So I dont know where your response comes from.
Just say you cant produce a map next time

Where did I say they had a sovereign state?

When you started to quote the treaty of Lausanne that did not even mention Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

Billo, then why has t Hamas removed that from their charter??

Why would they recognize Israel, when Israel won't recognize them?

Hamas has said once Israel ends the occupation/blockade and demonstrates over a period of time that they will not violate Gazan air space, territorial waters or Gaza proper, then they'll revise the Charter and make it current to international standards.

Ergo, nothing is going to happen until Israel ends its occupation, blockade and aggression.

And stop lying about Hamas, they have consistently said they are against a treaty and that they are only interested in 'liberating' all the land from the river to the sea.

I'm not sure what comment of mine you are referring to as a "lie", but Hamas has not "consistently" said that. They have said that, yes. But they've also stated they're willing to accept a two-state solution. But hey, if cherry-picking their statements make you feel better about British Columbia, then be my guest.

Lets see if historical accuracy will help you understand were the problem lies, and how the Palestinians have brainwashed you into believing their LIES

Start with the Oslo accords

Key agreements in the Oslo process were:
Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.
The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).
The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[8] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel.
The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.


So ,lets take the highlighted parts that the PLO as custodians of the Palestinian peoples agreed to in full

The partial withdrawal of Israeli presence from gaza was undertaken in August 2005 at the request of the P.A. as a precursor to peace talks in line with the Oslo accords. As the withdrawal was taking place the P.A. increased the number and frequency of illegal rocket attacks. So Israel ended its occupation and did not have a blockade in place so why didn't the Palestinians stop the belligerence when they had agreed to do so ?

The PLO also agreed to allowing Israeli settlements in certain areas of the west bank, and making 60% of the west bank off limits to the Palestinian people temporarily. That sorts out your problem with the occupation, the Palestinians agreed to it.

Hamas has once again stated that they will not be part of any deals that take away any Palestinian land as detailed in their existing charter. They have also stated that no Jew will be allowed to LIVE in Palestine once it is returned to the Palestinians. This means the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

You just lost the farm as the LAW is clear on illegal gun running and terrorist activity. Any such will be met with force and if necessary blockades and sanctions.

So are you saying Gazan's do not have a right to defend themselves?

Because you need guns to do that. Why is it illegal for them to have guns?

It is illegal under International Law to use terrorism and to target civilians deliberately. They can defend themselves from attack, they cant instigate an attack without a valid reason.

Now since when has gaza been occupied as in August 2005 Israel complied with the first part of Oslo and withdrew all Israelis from gaza. Not one Israeli soldier is occupying gaza and the hamas leaders have said this time after time.

You do not have to have a standing army, for the territory to be un occupation. Israel still maintains "effective control" of the area and therefore, it is considered under IHL, an "occupation".
That is the Palmer Commission report and as I told Sweet_Caroline , its purpose was not to determine the legality of the blockade.


The occupation was lifted under the terms of the Oslo accords and the gazans decided to disregard the treaty they had signed. The UN itself, and not some puissant, has stated the blockade is legal.

Here's a few quick things about that report:

1) Members of the commission had a definite conflict of interest...



2) The commission did not interview any witnesses from the incident...Which means they based their "opinion", in part, on Israel's bullshit, damage control, propaganda.

3) The report was an "opinion" piece, not a legal document...



4) The commission based part of it's findings on a flawed Israeli report...

All the other UN reports say it is "not an armed conflict".

5) The commissions findings on the blockade dependent on false facts...

The Naval Blockade

In para.70 it erroneously states that “the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted” when in fact Ms Feldman explained to Turkel that all maritime commercial traffic to Gaza had been prohibited by varying procedures since the occupation began in 1967. This gives the lie to the Panel’s statement later in the paragraph that “the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods.” The blockade was only imposed after the Free Gaza Movement began to sail regularly to Gaza during 2008 in defiance of Israeli restrictions. It was to prevent this humanitarian traffic that Israel applied the blockade which the UNHRC FFM has since declared to be illegal. It follows that the Panel’s reasoning in para.77 that the naval blockade was not imposed to punish the people of Gaza for the election of Hamas is unconvincing.

That UNHRC FFM report, was the one I was referring to earlier.

There's more, but you get the message.

Now you and Sweet_Caroline need to stop using that bullshit report as proof.

Some, such as law experts Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, Chicago Law School Professor Eric Posner, and Johns Hopkins International Law and Diplomacy Professor Ruth Wedgwood, said that the naval blockade, the boarding in international waters, and the use of force were in accord with long-standing international law.[7][8][9] Dershowitz compared the blockade with the U.S. blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Posner with the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War

Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote that the legality of blockades as a response to acts of war “is not subject to serious doubt.”[7] He likened Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza to U.S. naval actions in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the U.S. had deemed lawful though not part of an armed conflict.[7]

Similarly, Allen Weiner, former U.S. State Department attorney and legal counselor at the American Embassy in The Hague, and now a Stanford Law School professor, said "the Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal".[27]

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to [Hamas]".[9]


Blockade in American Civil War


Cartoon map of Union blockade of Confederacy during U.S. Civil War
Eric Posner, international law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noting that the raid had "led to wild accusations of illegality", wrote that blockades are lawful during times of armed conflict (such as the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War), and that "war-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas".[8] He compared Israel's blockade to the Union blockade by the Union against the Confederacy (a non-state) during the U.S. Civil War.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the legitimacy of that blockade.[8]

Philip Roche, a partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with the London-headquartered international law firm Norton Rose, also said: "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza, and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal."[1] The basis for that is the law of blockade, derived from international law that was codified in the 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, and which was then updated in 1994 in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea--"a legally recognized document".[1] He addressed the charge by Human Rights Watch that the blockade of a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against civilians, ostensibly violating Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, by saying "This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanctions are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own."[8]

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic.[28] He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations.[28]


Oslo Accords 1993, hands shaking


Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony in 1993
He wrote:


Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.[28]

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.'"[2]

Abbas Al Lawati, a Dubai-based Gulf News journalist on board the flotilla, opined that Israel is likely to cite the Gaza–Jericho Agreement (Annex I, Article XI) which vests Israel with the responsibility for security along the coastline and the Sea of Gaza.[22] The agreement stipulates that Israel may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity.[29]

Professor Wedgwood opined that the goal of the flotilla was to: "denude Israel of what it thinks it was guaranteed in the 1993 Oslo Accords which preceded the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, which is the control of the external borders of Gaza and West Bank.... The problem ... is that you could easily have a rearming of Hamas, which caused a terrible conflict."[9]

That is just "opinion", not IHL.

BTW, stop pointing to the Oslo Accords, because they're not enforceable. They became "null and void" when Israel was found in breech of them.

Actually it was the Palestinians that were found in breach of them after Israel implemented the first phase of the Oslo accords.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Two points I would make.

So are you saying Gazan's do not have a right to defend themselves?

BTW, stop pointing to the Oslo Accords, because they're not enforceable. They became "null and void" when Israel was found in breech of them.

(COMMENT)

POINT ONE:

The Oslo Accords are not "null and void" simply because the Arab Palestinian believes that Israel has violated (in breach) some aspect of the accords. There are established protocols to handle such allegations (Article XV - Resolution of Disputes - Oslo I Accords) and procedures (Article XXI - Settlement of Differences and Disputes - Oslo II) which the Arab Palestinians did not pursue. But that is not the main issue.​

POINT TWO:

Today, the buzz word is "monolithic." And HAMAS is anything but "monolithic." HAMAS is as complex politically as any very large scale integrated circuit in your computer is technologically. It is a dynamic organization (marked by usually continuous activity, adaptive and capable of change). One of the problems with HAMAS is that its policy is so dynamic, few people understand what it is from day to day. The aggregate policy is hostile, demonstrated by the launching of rockets over a number of years. But other policies are not so clear.

It is not even clear that, as a formal policy, HAMAS has a policy. But it has not abandon the Covenant entirely. The training camps for children, the stressed policy of "by any means," the "the curriculum issue," are all aspects of the Covenant being reenforced.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Billo, then why has t Hamas removed that from their charter??

Why would they recognize Israel, when Israel won't recognize them?

Hamas has said once Israel ends the occupation/blockade and demonstrates over a period of time that they will not violate Gazan air space, territorial waters or Gaza proper, then they'll revise the Charter and make it current to international standards.

Ergo, nothing is going to happen until Israel ends its occupation, blockade and aggression.

And stop lying about Hamas, they have consistently said they are against a treaty and that they are only interested in 'liberating' all the land from the river to the sea.

I'm not sure what comment of mine you are referring to as a "lie", but Hamas has not "consistently" said that. They have said that, yes. But they've also stated they're willing to accept a two-state solution. But hey, if cherry-picking their statements make you feel better about British Columbia, then be my guest.

Ah, but Hamas does recognize Israel by saying they'll change their charter if Israel does so and so and so.
Plus , Israel does recognize Hamas-as a terrorist organization.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I had to think about this for a while.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, one of the principle purposes of the Mandate System (League of Nations) and the International Trusteeship System (UN Charter), is to set the condition and the environment such that a progressive development towards self-government or independence can be achieved. It is definitely not an end run around the abolishment of colonial policy.


(COMMENT)

Mandates (Types "A" "B" and "C"), as well as Trusteeships have varying degrees of control; and with that control --- comes responsibility.

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

Both Mandates (of old) and International Trusteeships (Chapter XIIs of which there are none today), have differing degrees of problems and complexities. Nearly half of the territories under protectorate status demanded sovereignty before they are ready and become either troubled or failed states. And the states in North Africa and Middle East have had their fair share of difficulties. Even today, most of the troubled states were once Mandates: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen; and, of course, the State of Palestine. It hasn't been all that long since Lebanon put-up its guns and reached a calmer state - yet a quarter of it is still terrorist controlled.

Oddly enough, the two most stable countries are Israel and Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Conversely, it doesn't automatically mean that the indigenous population has control. And it doesn't mean that the indigenous population is autonomous or self-governing.

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe the Mandatory (UK) consistently moved the Arab Palestinian away from establishing independence or otherwise executing their rights to self-government. Instead, what I see, is evidence that even up to today, the Arab Palestinian has consistently demonstrated that it is not yet capable of establishing a government able to stand alone; that is not a danger to regional peace and security.

It is not a violation of the Mandate (whatever that really means) to support independence for the Arab Palestinian if they could not demonstrate themselves capable of handling autonomous or self-governing institutions to build an infrastructure capable of standing alone. And in retrospect, over the last half-century, the Arab Palestinian actions has demonstrated that they cannot.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are joking, right. Britain thwarted every move the Palestinians made to create an independent state including imprisoning, exiling, or killing Palestinian leaders.

Britain was in control for two and a half decades and never held elections for a government.

Palestine needed very little assistance. Britain should have been in and out in ten years.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I had to think about this for a while.

That is true and the purpose of the mandates was to assist the people in achieving those goals. However, Britain violated the mandate and consistently moved the Palestinians away from that goal.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to their sovereign state. And not just little pieces of their state.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe the Mandatory (UK) consistently moved the Arab Palestinian away from establishing independence or otherwise executing their rights to self-government. Instead, what I see, is evidence that even up to today, the Arab Palestinian has consistently demonstrated that it is not yet capable of establishing a government able to stand alone; that is not a danger to regional peace and security.

It is not a violation of the Mandate (whatever that really means) to support independence for the Arab Palestinian if they could not demonstrate themselves capable of handling autonomous or self-governing institutions to build an infrastructure capable of standing alone. And in retrospect, over the last half-century, the Arab Palestinian actions has demonstrated that they cannot.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are joking, right. Britain thwarted every move the Palestinians made to create an independent state including imprisoning, exiling, or killing Palestinian leaders.

Britain was in control for two and a half decades and never held elections for a government.

Palestine needed very little assistance. Britain should have been in and out in ten years.

Thanks for providing links for the first statement. Oh wait...