Praying at the temple mount

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If you say so.

Palestine was born under belligerent, military occupation and that occupation continues to today. Standing alone has never been an option

(MEMORORY JOGGER)

TIME PERIOD 1968-70:

The radicalized Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); revising its Charter in 1968, now declaring that:

• “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine,”
• “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.”
​

Three Uncompromising Arab-Palestinian Positions:

• All of Palestine would yield to Arab rule.
• The Arab Palestinians refuse to accept:

∆ Judaism as a nationality.
∆ Any form of Zionism.
​

§ A significant element within the Arab Palestinian Community had leanings towards a strong post-World War II non-dogmatic Marxisms, most of whom advocated the overthrow of Arab Monarchs.
​

First order of intimidation.

A number of PLO splinter groups initiated a strategy of intimidating or coercing target civilian populations to influence the policy of their respective governments. This included operations conducted involving assassination, kidnapping, and murder. In the this period, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al Israel Airliner. The backlash of this event created the rift between the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government. In the same frame, Black September (another PLO extremist group) attempted to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan on two separate occasions (giving a demonstrated deadly form to the anti-Monarch position of the Palestinians). King Hussein came to believe that an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten Regional Security and specially the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. Other Arab Monarchs and some weaker governments held similar thoughts. While the West Bank was Occupied, it was still, by a joint Parliament vote (50% Palestinians) sovereign Jordanian Territory and having been extended Jordanian citizenship.
​

(COMMENT)

There was no impediment to the Palestinian developing the qualities of "standing alone" either under Jordanian Rule or Israeli Occupation. That is a completely bogus argument. It was a case that the Palestinians wanted to take over the Kingdom and were effectively crushed by HM's Forces. And as some point, the King would have to cut the West Bank loose to pursue its own agenda. Immediately after the Palestinian attempt on King Hussein's life, the Arab Monarchs and Strongman Regimes, The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” The Arab Monarchs and Strongman Regimes were happy to further the Palestinian focus on the Israelis. That would keep the migration of Palestinian dissatisfaction contained.

The Palestinians had ample opportunity to turn-around the Belligerent Occupation into a Cooperative Occupation for the benefit of all. They simply choose a different path. That path has lead them to today's outcomes.

Thank you. Israel has violated almost everything you posted.

(COMMENT)

But that only goes to lend support that you have a comprehension problem.

Yes, The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been a matter of history for two decades prior to the establishment of the State of Palestine. That did not prevent the West Bank Palestinians from focusing their resources on building up the economy and developing a manufacturing base. Up until mid-1967, the Hashemite Kingdom had sovereign control of the West Bank. And in that 17 year period, the Palestinians did nothing to improve their territory. There is no wonder that now, in the 37 years since then, they have caused such a regional disturbance the application of ever increasing security measures had to be applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If you say so.

Palestine was born under belligerent, military occupation and that occupation continues to today. Standing alone has never been an option

(MEMORORY JOGGER)

TIME PERIOD 1968-70:

The radicalized Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); revising its Charter in 1968, now declaring that:

• “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine,”
• “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.”
​

Three Uncompromising Arab-Palestinian Positions:

• All of Palestine would yield to Arab rule.
• The Arab Palestinians refuse to accept:

∆ Judaism as a nationality.
∆ Any form of Zionism.
​

§ A significant element within the Arab Palestinian Community had leanings towards a strong post-World War II non-dogmatic Marxisms, most of whom advocated the overthrow of Arab Monarchs.​

First order of intimidation.

A number of PLO splinter groups initiated a strategy of intimidating or coercing target civilian populations to influence the policy of their respective governments. This included operations conducted involving assassination, kidnapping, and murder. In the this period, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al Israel Airliner. The backlash of this event created the rift between the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government. In the same frame, Black September (another PLO extremist group) attempted to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan on two separate occasions (giving a demonstrated deadly form to the anti-Monarch position of the Palestinians). King Hussein came to believe that an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten Regional Security and specially the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. Other Arab Monarchs and some weaker governments held similar thoughts. While the West Bank was Occupied, it was still, by a joint Parliament vote (50% Palestinians) sovereign Jordanian Territory and having been extended Jordanian citizenship.
​

(COMMENT)

There was no impediment to the Palestinian developing the qualities of "standing alone" either under Jordanian Rule or Israeli Occupation. That is a completely bogus argument. It was a case that the Palestinians wanted to take over the Kingdom and were effectively crushed by HM's Forces. And as some point, the King would have to cut the West Bank loose to pursue its own agenda. Immediately after the Palestinian attempt on King Hussein's life, the Arab Monarchs and Strongman Regimes, The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” The Arab Monarchs and Strongman Regimes were happy to further the Palestinian focus on the Israelis. That would keep the migration of Palestinian dissatisfaction contained.

The Palestinians had ample opportunity to turn-around the Belligerent Occupation into a Cooperative Occupation for the benefit of all. They simply choose a different path. That path has lead them to today's outcomes.

Thank you. Israel has violated almost everything you posted.

(COMMENT)

But that only goes to lend support that you have a comprehension problem.

Yes, The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been a matter of history for two decades prior to the establishment of the State of Palestine. That did not prevent the West Bank Palestinians from focusing their resources on building up the economy and developing a manufacturing base. Up until mid-1967, the Hashemite Kingdom had sovereign control of the West Bank. And in that 17 year period, the Palestinians did nothing to improve their territory. There is no wonder that now, in the 37 years since then, they have caused such a regional disturbance the application of ever increasing security measures had to be applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

• “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine,”

True, that is readily apparent. Most national liberation movements conclude that violence is the only thing that will bring an oppressive regime to cede control over the population they are oppressing. Mandela came to the same conclusion in South Africa:

"Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance

Nelson Mandela set up the African National Congress' armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), in 1961 when he lost hope that passive and non-violent resistance to the apartheid government would bear fruit."

Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance


• “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.”

Naturally, like all national liberation groups.

Mandela's Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANCs Spear of the Nation) performed commando actions.
uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) and the Armed Struggle | South African History Online


• All of Palestine would yield to Arab rule.

The term is Majority rule and if the Arabs are the majority and vote according to their ethnic status, then it would result in Arab rule. Nothing unusual about this.

• The Arab Palestinians refuse to accept:

Judaism as a nationality.

Judaism is not a nationality. What's the issue? It is a religion. If Judaism were a nationality, Jews living outside Israel would have to be considered citizens of a foreign power.

Any form of Zionism.

Certainly, how can a non-Jew support the supremacy of Jews in their own land. What's the problem with not accepting Zionism?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is illegal for Israeli settlers and the Israeli government to be in East Jerusalem.

So it's Apartheid.

It is legal for Palestinian-Jews (who were living there prior to 1948) to be there.

Only as Dhimmis,, Nazi Boi.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Palestine was born under belligerent, military occupation and that occupation continues to today. Standing alone has never been an option

"Palestine" is the casual name of a region. Similar to to "Mid-West" or "South-East." There has never been a country called Palestine. There sure the **** has never been a Palestinian people. There are Arabs, Persians, Jews, et al.

The claim of "Palestinian" is a lie by you Muzzie Beasts for political purpose. These are Arabs - period.

 

[Phoenall]

Illegal for Jews to be in East Jerusalem?

So you are supporting Apartheid against Jews, Nazi Boi?

It is illegal for Israeli settlers and the Israeli government to be in East Jerusalem.

It is legal for Palestinian-Jews (who were living there prior to 1948) to be there.

Says who ?

Says who ?


What about Jews who owned land and property in east Jerusalem before they were forcibly evicted by the Palestinians in 1949 ?

They were not evicted by the Palestinians in 1949.

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Then who where they evicted by ?
Remember that the Palestinians fought with the arab league armies and were the ones killing the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If you say so.

Palestine was born under belligerent, military occupation and that occupation continues to today. Standing alone has never been an option

(MEMORORY JOGGER)

TIME PERIOD 1968-70:

The radicalized Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); revising its Charter in 1968, now declaring that:

• “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine,”
• “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.”
​

Three Uncompromising Arab-Palestinian Positions:

• All of Palestine would yield to Arab rule.
• The Arab Palestinians refuse to accept:

∆ Judaism as a nationality.
∆ Any form of Zionism.
​

§ A significant element within the Arab Palestinian Community had leanings towards a strong post-World War II non-dogmatic Marxisms, most of whom advocated the overthrow of Arab Monarchs.​

First order of intimidation.

A number of PLO splinter groups initiated a strategy of intimidating or coercing target civilian populations to influence the policy of their respective governments. This included operations conducted involving assassination, kidnapping, and murder. In the this period, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al Israel Airliner. The backlash of this event created the rift between the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government. In the same frame, Black September (another PLO extremist group) attempted to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan on two separate occasions (giving a demonstrated deadly form to the anti-Monarch position of the Palestinians). King Hussein came to believe that an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten Regional Security and specially the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. Other Arab Monarchs and some weaker governments held similar thoughts. While the West Bank was Occupied, it was still, by a joint Parliament vote (50% Palestinians) sovereign Jordanian Territory and having been extended Jordanian citizenship.
​

(COMMENT)

There was no impediment to the Palestinian developing the qualities of "standing alone" either under Jordanian Rule or Israeli Occupation. That is a completely bogus argument. It was a case that the Palestinians wanted to take over the Kingdom and were effectively crushed by HM's Forces. And as some point, the King would have to cut the West Bank loose to pursue its own agenda. Immediately after the Palestinian attempt on King Hussein's life, the Arab Monarchs and Strongman Regimes, The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” The Arab Monarchs and Strongman Regimes were happy to further the Palestinian focus on the Israelis. That would keep the migration of Palestinian dissatisfaction contained.

The Palestinians had ample opportunity to turn-around the Belligerent Occupation into a Cooperative Occupation for the benefit of all. They simply choose a different path. That path has lead them to today's outcomes.

Thank you. Israel has violated almost everything you posted.

(COMMENT)

But that only goes to lend support that you have a comprehension problem.

Yes, The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been a matter of history for two decades prior to the establishment of the State of Palestine. That did not prevent the West Bank Palestinians from focusing their resources on building up the economy and developing a manufacturing base. Up until mid-1967, the Hashemite Kingdom had sovereign control of the West Bank. And in that 17 year period, the Palestinians did nothing to improve their territory. There is no wonder that now, in the 37 years since then, they have caused such a regional disturbance the application of ever increasing security measures had to be applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

• “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine,”

True, that is readily apparent. Most national liberation movements conclude that violence is the only thing that will bring an oppressive regime to cede control over the population they are oppressing. Mandela came to the same conclusion in South Africa:

"Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance

Nelson Mandela set up the African National Congress' armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), in 1961 when he lost hope that passive and non-violent resistance to the apartheid government would bear fruit."

Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance


• “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.”

Naturally, like all national liberation groups.

Mandela's Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANCs Spear of the Nation) performed commando actions.
uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) and the Armed Struggle | South African History Online


• All of Palestine would yield to Arab rule.

The term is Majority rule and if the Arabs are the majority and vote according to their ethnic status, then it would result in Arab rule. Nothing unusual about this.

• The Arab Palestinians refuse to accept:

Judaism as a nationality.

Judaism is not a nationality. What's the issue? It is a religion. If Judaism were a nationality, Jews living outside Israel would have to be considered citizens of a foreign power.

Any form of Zionism.

Certainly, how can a non-Jew support the supremacy of Jews in their own land. What's the problem with not accepting Zionism?

MORE OFF TOPIC SPAMMING AND TROLLING BECAUSE THE POSTER IS A COMPLETE IDIOT

 

[Billo_Really]

So it's Apartheid.

No, it's IHL.

It is illegal to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

 

[Phoenall]

So it's Apartheid.

No, it's IHL.

It is illegal to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

Didn't stop the arab muslims from doing just that in 1949 did it, when they evicted all the Jews and shipped in 10's of 1,000's of arab muslims to fill their places.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, this might be an implied prohibition, through the application of Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It could be inferred by the Element to the Offense in Article 7(1d) Crime against Humanity (Deportation or Forcible Transfer of Population): "The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence."

No, it's IHL.

It is illegal to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Consent to an Israeli foreign presence and exclusive jurisdiction could be given during the occupation and could mark its termination: at least for "Area C" territory. In this respect, Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention could not be interpreted as prohibiting the the PLO to give – over time – its consent to the Israeli presence, thereby precluding the applicability of occupation law. This would have an impact on just how to apply Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to the conditions.

This is different from the situation observed in the Gaza Strip. In the classical sense of an occupation as defined by Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention, the presence of a certain number of Israeli Forces in the occupied territory. It is generally understood that to maintain effective control, --- Israeli Forces --- exercised without the continued physical presence of the IDF. Therefore, the absence of the IDF on the Gaza Strip is already a necessary and sufficient condition to mark the end of occupation for the Gaza Strip.

There is a totally separate issue of the official interpretation of territorial boundaries. As our friend "P F Tinmore" and HAMAS points out, from their perspective, all of Israel is actually occupied Palestinian territory. There are three precedence that must be considered in terms of this legal and Political position:

• The Arab combatants' initial victories reinforced morale amongst them. The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on the 6 February, they declared:

“ The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force [...]
The prestige of the United Nations would be better served by abandoning this plan and by not imposing such an injustice [...]

The Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition. The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children."
​

• 1968 The Palestinian National Charter

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
​

• The 2013 HAMAS Position Paper published by Khaled Meshal, Political Leader, and Senior Official within the Islamic Resistance.

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim
​

The importance of this point of order is to determine the scope and nature of the conflict. International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• International Armed Conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Knowing the scope and nature of the conflict (P F Tinmore's position of an NIAC) will effect some of the claims made by the pro-Palestinian camp. The crime must be strictly construed by the ICC. For Instance:

Article 7 (1d) Crime Against Humanity of Deportation or Forcible Transfer of Population
The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.

• The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
• “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
​

Article 8 (2b, xiii) War Crime of Destroying or Seizing the Enemy’s Property
The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
​

I chose these two crime because they are the most universally claimed by Palestinians. In the case of the Right of Return issue, to offset the claim of forceable transfer, the basic claim is: "Given the large number claimed to be expelled numbers , and given what happened to the Palestinian Arabs in 1948, Palestinians conclude that the Jewish State adopted a policy of expulsion and proceeded to carry it out. The remaining set of Questions are:

• From what country, state or location did the Israelis move the Refugees, and to what country, state or location did the Israelis deport them to?
• If the Jewish State of Israel is not recognized by the Palestinians, THEN what impact does it have on determining the difference between an IAC and NAIC?

If, as P F Tinmore and HAMAS claims, that it is all Arab Palestine, then the first consequence is that it is not an IAC. And if it is not an IAC, then it must be an NIAC, and neither one of these claims is valid --- Article 7(1d) and Article 8(2b, viii)], OR Article 8 (2b, xiii) because they must be committed in the context of an IAC.

Personally, I find it difficult to understand how, for the political purpose the Palestinians can claim it is all one (indivisible) Arab territory; but for the purpose of a criminal complaint they recognize the Jewish State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, it's IHL.

It is illegal to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

So it's Apartheid then.

Facts are facts. Virtually all Muslim countries practice Apartheid.

 

[montelatici]

No, it's IHL.

It is illegal to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

So it's Apartheid then.

Facts are facts. Virtually all Muslim countries practice Apartheid.

If a Muslim countries practices Apartheid, it should be sanctioned. What Muslim country practices Apartheid?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If a Muslim countries practices Apartheid, it should be sanctioned. What Muslim country practices Apartheid?

Every Muslim country under Sharia practices Apartheid. Every last one.

Jizya is Apartheid in action.

That is Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, ad infintium.

You Muzzie Beasts make excuses for them while hurling your own feces at Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

Try again freddy boy

 

[Phoenall]

No, it's IHL.

It is illegal to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

So it's Apartheid then.

Facts are facts. Virtually all Muslim countries practice Apartheid.

If a Muslim countries practices Apartheid, it should be sanctioned. What Muslim country practices Apartheid?

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Iraq, Yemen will these do for starters ?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,d

Your citation should read "Art 47 GCIV." Other wise the citation is correct --- I knew what you meant. However your interpretation is wrong given the scenario.

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

(COMMENT)

The Occupying Power (Israel) DID NOT curtail the rights of the Palestinian in the authorized usage of Area "C." This was authorized by the "sole representative of the Palestinian people."

There is also the issue of established sovereignty.

The Subliminal Notation:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional
independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making
war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
​

The Timeline Segment:

In 1988, when on 31 July 88 HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank, Israel was already in effective control of "Area C" in the West Bank.

Article 42, The Hague Convention:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

(QUESTIONs)

• During the period 31 July 1988 and 15 November 1988, what country was in the sole effective control over territories?
• When did any manner of Palestinian authority establish actual sovereignty (supreme, and absolute power by which an independent state is governs)?
• The PLO did not declare independence immediately.

In 1648, the Powers that be, created The Treaty of Westphalia that would bring an end to the Thirty Years' War. The Treaty of Westphalia had within it, an imbedded concept that was a cornerstone with which to move forward: "forgiving the sins of the past." (Article II) And, it was very straight forward and clear on the matter of sovereignty; in that (Article CXVII, of the Treaty) "the Rights of Sovereignty, and what depends thereon, for the Lords to whom they belong." The Westphalian system of sovereign states was established in 1648 as part of the Peace of Westphalia. There were three core points to the treaty:

The principle of state sovereignty;
The principle of equality of states in political voice;
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.
​

You have seen these principles before. They are incorporated in the more modern UN Charter. This three and a half century old treaty is still relevant in concept today.

The first among these essential core ideas is that of sovereignty; and it is a quality that all self-supporting and self-governing nation-states (a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state) possess. This is the notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory --- the cornerstone and foundation of what it means to be recognized as a nation-state. We've seen this variation as well:

ARTICLE 3 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

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

The Treaty of Westphalia is very specific and outlines exactly the authority and sovereignty that each realm and leaders have. It is at odd with the Montevideo Convention that statehood is independent of recognition (the Declarative Model). While it often appears that for the purpose of discussions in theory, many countries support the Declarative Model, in actual practice the support the Constitutive Model. Court and practical assessments tend to view the actual possession of territory as a superior position to that of a simple declaration. In that regard, Israel met the criteria for a Declarative Model in the establishment of the Jewish State; BUT, it also was forced by externally interfering Arab Coalition to physically defend its recognition and integrity. Since the Arab Coalition Attacked first, they are the aggressor. While it is customary that an aggressor should not profit from illegal military campaigns; the reverse is true in the case of the defender which establishes positive control of a defined territory.

Most recently, the Russian Federation ceased Crimea. There is no enforcement or court action contemplated, simply because --- in practice --- the nations look at each situation on a case-by-case basis.

The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states; except that neither side is willing to compromise. And under the political climate and behind the diplomatic posturing, agreements similar in nature to the Oslo Accords will fail (just a matter of time). --- Any such shoehorned-in agreement will be compromised in short order and to the point that hostilities will re-ignite.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

If a Muslim countries practices Apartheid, it should be sanctioned. What Muslim country practices Apartheid?

Every Muslim country under Sharia practices Apartheid. Every last one.

Jizya is Apartheid in action.

That is Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, ad infintium.

You Muzzie Beasts make excuses for them while hurling your own feces at Israel.

None of the countries you mention separate people based on race or ethnicity.

 

[Billo_Really]

So it's Apartheid then.

Facts are facts. Virtually all Muslim countries practice Apartheid.

Look, if you're not well versed in IHL, then this is a conversation that is over your head and you should not participate in.

Now go off and do whatever you trolls do.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,d

Your citation should read "Art 47 GCIV." Other wise the citation is correct --- I knew what you meant. However your interpretation is wrong given the scenario.

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

(COMMENT)

The Occupying Power (Israel) DID NOT curtail the rights of the Palestinian in the authorized usage of Area "C." This was authorized by the "sole representative of the Palestinian people."

There is also the issue of established sovereignty.

The Subliminal Notation:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional
independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making
war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
​

The Timeline Segment:

In 1988, when on 31 July 88 HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank, Israel was already in effective control of "Area C" in the West Bank.

Article 42, The Hague Convention:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

(QUESTIONs)

• During the period 31 July 1988 and 15 November 1988, what country was in the sole effective control over territories?
• When did any manner of Palestinian authority establish actual sovereignty (supreme, and absolute power by which an independent state is governs)?
• The PLO did not declare independence immediately.

In 1648, the Powers that be, created The Treaty of Westphalia that would bring an end to the Thirty Years' War. The Treaty of Westphalia had within it, an imbedded concept that was a cornerstone with which to move forward: "forgiving the sins of the past." (Article II) And, it was very straight forward and clear on the matter of sovereignty; in that (Article CXVII, of the Treaty) "the Rights of Sovereignty, and what depends thereon, for the Lords to whom they belong." The Westphalian system of sovereign states was established in 1648 as part of the Peace of Westphalia. There were three core points to the treaty:

The principle of state sovereignty;
The principle of equality of states in political voice;
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.
​

You have seen these principles before. They are incorporated in the more modern UN Charter. This three and a half century old treaty is still relevant in concept today.

The first among these essential core ideas is that of sovereignty; and it is a quality that all self-supporting and self-governing nation-states (a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state) possess. This is the notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory --- the cornerstone and foundation of what it means to be recognized as a nation-state. We've seen this variation as well:

ARTICLE 3 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

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

The Treaty of Westphalia is very specific and outlines exactly the authority and sovereignty that each realm and leaders have. It is at odd with the Montevideo Convention that statehood is independent of recognition (the Declarative Model). While it often appears that for the purpose of discussions in theory, many countries support the Declarative Model, in actual practice the support the Constitutive Model. Court and practical assessments tend to view the actual possession of territory as a superior position to that of a simple declaration. In that regard, Israel met the criteria for a Declarative Model in the establishment of the Jewish State; BUT, it also was forced by externally interfering Arab Coalition to physically defend its recognition and integrity. Since the Arab Coalition Attacked first, they are the aggressor. While it is customary that an aggressor should not profit from illegal military campaigns; the reverse is true in the case of the defender which establishes positive control of a defined territory.

Most recently, the Russian Federation ceased Crimea. There is no enforcement or court action contemplated, simply because --- in practice --- the nations look at each situation on a case-by-case basis.

The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states; except that neither side is willing to compromise. And under the political climate and behind the diplomatic posturing, agreements similar in nature to the Oslo Accords will fail (just a matter of time). --- Any such shoehorned-in agreement will be compromised in short order and to the point that hostilities will re-ignite.

Most Respectfully,
R

I repeat:

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,d

Your citation should read "Art 47 GCIV." Other wise the citation is correct --- I knew what you meant. However your interpretation is wrong given the scenario.

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

(COMMENT)

The Occupying Power (Israel) DID NOT curtail the rights of the Palestinian in the authorized usage of Area "C." This was authorized by the "sole representative of the Palestinian people."

There is also the issue of established sovereignty.

The Subliminal Notation:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional
independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making
war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
​

The Timeline Segment:

In 1988, when on 31 July 88 HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank, Israel was already in effective control of "Area C" in the West Bank.

Article 42, The Hague Convention:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

(QUESTIONs)

• During the period 31 July 1988 and 15 November 1988, what country was in the sole effective control over territories?
• When did any manner of Palestinian authority establish actual sovereignty (supreme, and absolute power by which an independent state is governs)?
• The PLO did not declare independence immediately.

In 1648, the Powers that be, created The Treaty of Westphalia that would bring an end to the Thirty Years' War. The Treaty of Westphalia had within it, an imbedded concept that was a cornerstone with which to move forward: "forgiving the sins of the past." (Article II) And, it was very straight forward and clear on the matter of sovereignty; in that (Article CXVII, of the Treaty) "the Rights of Sovereignty, and what depends thereon, for the Lords to whom they belong." The Westphalian system of sovereign states was established in 1648 as part of the Peace of Westphalia. There were three core points to the treaty:

The principle of state sovereignty;
The principle of equality of states in political voice;
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.
​

You have seen these principles before. They are incorporated in the more modern UN Charter. This three and a half century old treaty is still relevant in concept today.

The first among these essential core ideas is that of sovereignty; and it is a quality that all self-supporting and self-governing nation-states (a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state) possess. This is the notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory --- the cornerstone and foundation of what it means to be recognized as a nation-state. We've seen this variation as well:

ARTICLE 3 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

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

The Treaty of Westphalia is very specific and outlines exactly the authority and sovereignty that each realm and leaders have. It is at odd with the Montevideo Convention that statehood is independent of recognition (the Declarative Model). While it often appears that for the purpose of discussions in theory, many countries support the Declarative Model, in actual practice the support the Constitutive Model. Court and practical assessments tend to view the actual possession of territory as a superior position to that of a simple declaration. In that regard, Israel met the criteria for a Declarative Model in the establishment of the Jewish State; BUT, it also was forced by externally interfering Arab Coalition to physically defend its recognition and integrity. Since the Arab Coalition Attacked first, they are the aggressor. While it is customary that an aggressor should not profit from illegal military campaigns; the reverse is true in the case of the defender which establishes positive control of a defined territory.

Most recently, the Russian Federation ceased Crimea. There is no enforcement or court action contemplated, simply because --- in practice --- the nations look at each situation on a case-by-case basis.

The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states; except that neither side is willing to compromise. And under the political climate and behind the diplomatic posturing, agreements similar in nature to the Oslo Accords will fail (just a matter of time). --- Any such shoehorned-in agreement will be compromised in short order and to the point that hostilities will re-ignite.

Most Respectfully,
R

montelatici is correct.

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."​

Any agreement that calls for or allows the violation of people's rights is void. So Israel is subject to the rules of occupation regardless of anything said in Oslo.

With this in mind, no peace agreement that signs away the rights of the Palestinians will be valid.