SherriMunnerlyn,
et al,
The Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance against the State of Israel is the exact cause of the "Occupation;" invasion for the purpose of unlawful regime change. This was the first "cause." The "Occupation" is pursuant to:
Article 51 said:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
SOURCE:
Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression
The UN Security Council has not, to date, taken any action that prevents an armed attack by the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance or ensure the territorial integrity of the sovereign State of Israel.
Absent that action, the Occupation of the territories continues.
You are inappropriately conflating unrelated conflicts with each other, the Occupation has been ongoing for over 45 years and Palestinians are lawfully resisting that Occupation under international law the same today as they did from the beginning, it is just tactics and methods of resistance that are ever changing. If they form alliances with others, or get outside help, so what? That is what all peoples do, involved in struggles against Colonialism and Occupation.
(COMMENT)
The dispute over whether the Occupation is against existing law is a litigation issue. Clearly, the component elements of the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance have all expressed, in one form or another, that their "ultimate objective" is the destruction of the duly constituted state
(Israel). The release of the Occupied Territories, absent a reasonable expectation for peace and security, presents an unacceptable strategic advantage to the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance, to the detriment of Israel.
The "Occupation" and the "right to self-defense" are intrinsically tied, relative to the agenda of the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance members.
I was reading a message from Samer today that brought a smile to my face, he called all of us on the facebook protests warriors standing beside him in his struggle for freedom.
(COMMENT)
Freedom is a word, like democracy. For terrorists, insurgents, and armed aggressors, it is like the boilerplate to a contract --- it is the false flag that attempts to give the aggression some legitimacy
(it has proven to be an excellent advertising campaign). But like any sales gimmick, the wise shopper can see through it. It is the red herring to the real issue of peace and security for all the people; Israeli and Palestinian alike. But that cannot happen if one side has to make an unacceptable sacrifice to the extortion demands of the other.
Make no mistake, the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance represent an Extortion consortium that is holding peace hostage. There could be peace tomorrow, if the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance really wanted it.
Samer Issawi has been charged with no new crimes, that is a fact that cannot be disputed, and thus international law clearly dictates his release.
(COMMENT)
Oh come now. You know that Samer Issawi violated his parole agreement. You know he is an insurgent, whether or not you and he disguise his efforts under the be banner of "freedom fighter." You know he is in league with other terrorist designated organization and criminal weapons traffickers. And you know that, if released, he will go back and rejoin his fellow insurgents to conduct more terrorist activity in the shallow name of freedom.
The release of Samer Issawi would be effected tomorrow if it served the greater cause for peace and security. But it simply doesn't.
I recognize that there are terror attacks carried out in this Occupation, and they are carried out by both sides. and I acknowledge those acts violate intl law. However, none of that changes the fact that the Palestinian people have the continuing right to resist their Occupation under intl law, and keep on resisting it, even with armed resistance, as long as that Occupation continues.
(COMMENT)
And you know that Israel has the right to self-defense under the UN Charter, against all elements of the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance which call for the destruction of Israel. And an integral part of that defense is the Occupation of strategic ground.
Again, it is not about the "Occupation." If it were about those lands, then the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance would have not rejected the two-state solution, and there would be a country today called Palestine. But the reality of the situation is, the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance rejected the two-state solution because they wanted to continue the struggle under a false flag of freedom. There can be no other worthy explanation.
What is the OPT that Palestinians have sovereignty rights in? It includes East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. We have an International Court of justice confirming this.
(COMMENT)
Whether or not I weigh in on this and choose a side is irrelevant. It is a matter of either litigation in the courts, or the establishment of such barriers to war - that there becomes a reasonable expectation for a lasting peace.
I, personally, think that the whole of Jerusalem should be either destroyed in its entirety, or that the warring factions make it a separate city state. I think it is rather childish for the warring parties to be combat engaged over a piece of ground that has some religious significants - but that each side will kill the other over. If there was ever a reason to doubt the existence of a Supreme Being, it would be this continuing battle over this worthless piece of ground. Clearly, neither side deserves it after the way they have acted counter to the teachings of the great prophets that came before us.
It has not been established that these are the only lands Palestinians have sovereignty rights in. In 1947 and 1948, Israel began ethnically cleansing Palestinian villages and they seized lands, part of which included lands that were identified as part of The Arab/Palestinian State in the UN Partition Plan. It is not clear that Israel has sovereignty rights in those lands, there is no intl law that gives them sovereignty rights in those lands acquired through military conquest. In fact, the UN charter specifically states lands cannot be acquired in this fashion. Further issue raised, the UN Partion Plan was actually never fully implemented by the UN, so can Israel argue they have any lands under it?
(COMMENT)
Apples and Oranges. Up to this point, we have been talking about national sovereignty and occupation issues. However, this is a property rights issue. It doesn't have an impact on the incorporation of the government; no matter who owns the land. If the US sells the State of Ohio to Canada tomorrow, it doesn't effect my ownership of the land. It only means that tomorrow I'm a Canadian. This is another red herring.
One really has to conclude when one looks to international law to find claims of Israel for land in Palestine, it is really difficult to find a legal basis for Israel's claims for any land at all.
(COMMENT)
This is another red herring. Through the original recognition of the State of Israel, up to, the border adjustments by treaty between Israel and the adjacent nations (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon)(Ceasefire with Syria), there are legitimate borders that are what they are.
The Occupied Regions, see above.
If the basis for land by Israel is the UN Partition Plan, then we should divide the land the way it was divided by that UN Partition Plan, and that means Israel must leave lands inside the OPT and other lands seized between 1947 and 1949 that were identified by the UN Partition Plan as part of The Palestinian State.
(COMMENT)
Wrong, there are treaties in place. What ever happened before, no matter how fair, unfair, or questionable you may believe it to be, the Treaties now have primacy. They are unassailable, to include the borders. The treaties have the force of law.
INow, as is obvious, when Hamas argues for lands inside the pre 1967 borders, we can all see they have a basis for such claims under intl law, some of the land or all of the land.
(COMMENT)
Another reason to exercise Article 51. Under International Law, the State of Israel is established. Under treaty, the original borders are modified. HAMAS, wants to question the validity as if to give some legitimacy to their insurgency operations for the benefactors in Persia; but there are some things that just are.
Now, why should they stop making their arguments for all of the land or additional land inside Israel pre 1967 borders, when intl law supports such claims, while the Occupation continues? Only a fool would do that, and they are not Fools.
(COMMENT)
They are not fools at all. They are Persian Puppets of the highest order operating outside the best interest of the people they aspose to represent. Another reason for the imposition of the Occupation. And "reason" is the key word.
Most Respectfully,
R
