The Clausewitz Failure

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Part of what you say is correct; but not quite taking into account the ramification of what you say

1b: Their is no application of colonialism in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). There is no true Non-self Governing Territory (NSGT) any where in the Middle East. See the UN Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) Listing: Non-Self-Governing Territories

Britain itself called Palestine a non self governing "legal entity" when its governance was passed to the UNPC.
Of course the UN dropped the ball and failed to protect the people and territory under its trust. And it still sits around with its thumb up its ass.

(COMMENT)

The original boundary as set up by the recommendation was not a Non-Self-Governing-Entity. WHY? Because the Provisional Government was established.

THEN, as the Arab League Forces moved across their respective frontiers, the status of that territory changed.

• The territory for which the Israeli Forces pursued the retreating Arab League Forces was the new sovereign territory for Israel.
• The territory for which the Jordanian Arab Legion capture was a predeclared annexation (to occur in the future as planned).
• The territory for which the Egyptian 3d Army captured (the Gaza Strip) was camouflaged as the All Arab Government (APG), but was actually a Military Governorship.
​

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

1a: Dismantling the Security Barrier/Wall presupposes that either every other country in the world have no right to control its borders and protect its citizens and territory;

The wall is not on a border.

(COMMENT)

Once again, we cover the same ground. The Israeli Security Barrier (The Wall) is a demarcation line with a single party enforcement. It denotes the frontier in which a physical and recognized change in political authority and geographical areas occurs. The Armistice Agreement are no longer valid. The two respective treaties apply with each having an Article on the issue of International Boundaries. However, the Israel Security Barrier was, in 1995, a clear frontier on which one side is enforced (Israeli) sovereignty and the other side is a political composite (Areas "A", "B" and "C").

You may refuse to recognize it; but, it is an enforced frontier. This frontier, being a demarcation, is covered under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

One might consider the Security Barrier a type of contemporary Marché (called a "territorial entity" today) or a demarcation line (a border between realms). In the French speaking areas like France, Belgium, a sector of Switzerland, Luxemburg and a small peace of Germany, there is a chain of stores, much like Sears, called the Le Bon Marché. In the typical European fashion of thinking about the concept, the Marché is the two sides (buyer and seller) or (good deal and not so good).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Part of what you say is correct; but not quite taking into account the ramification of what you say

1b: Their is no application of colonialism in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). There is no true Non-self Governing Territory (NSGT) any where in the Middle East. See the UN Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) Listing: Non-Self-Governing Territories

Britain itself called Palestine a non self governing "legal entity" when its governance was passed to the UNPC.
Of course the UN dropped the ball and failed to protect the people and territory under its trust. And it still sits around with its thumb up its ass.

(COMMENT)

The original boundary as set up by the recommendation was not a Non-Self-Governing-Entity. WHY? Because the Provisional Government was established.

THEN, as the Arab League Forces moved across their respective frontiers, the status of that territory changed.

• The territory for which the Israeli Forces pursued the retreating Arab League Forces was the new sovereign territory for Israel.
• The territory for which the Jordanian Arab Legion capture was a predeclared annexation (to occur in the future as planned).
• The territory for which the Egyptian 3d Army captured (the Gaza Strip) was camouflaged as the All Arab Government (APG), but was actually a Military Governorship.
​

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

1a: Dismantling the Security Barrier/Wall presupposes that either every other country in the world have no right to control its borders and protect its citizens and territory;

The wall is not on a border.

(COMMENT)

Once again, we cover the same ground. The Israeli Security Barrier (The Wall) is a demarcation line with a single party enforcement. It denotes the frontier in which a physical and recognized change in political authority and geographical areas occurs. The Armistice Agreement are no longer valid. The two respective treaties apply with each having an Article on the issue of International Boundaries. However, the Israel Security Barrier was, in 1995, a clear frontier on which one side is enforced (Israeli) sovereignty and the other side is a political composite (Areas "A", "B" and "C").

You may refuse to recognize it; but, it is an enforced frontier. This frontier, being a demarcation, is covered under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

One might consider the Security Barrier a type of contemporary Marché (called a "territorial entity" today) or a demarcation line (a border between realms). In the French speaking areas like France, Belgium, a sector of Switzerland, Luxemburg and a small peace of Germany, there is a chain of stores, much like Sears, called the Le Bon Marché. In the typical European fashion of thinking about the concept, the Marché is the two sides (buyer and seller) or (good deal and not so good).

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep forgetting that it is illegal to acquire territory through war.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

I think what's silly are your attempts to retroactively apply laws.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

I think what's silly are your attempts to retroactively apply laws.

Not so.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

I think what's silly are your attempts to retroactively apply laws.

Not so.

You're unaware?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply cannot apply a law retroactive to an event that occurred in the past. ("Ex Post Facto" )

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

(COMMENT)

You cannot put up a new speed limit today, and then charge people for speeding yesterday. Yesterday it was legal, today it is not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Yes I watch the video.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

(COMMENT)

The only critical Convention that comes into play before 1950 is the Hague Regulation of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions 1 thru 3.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Yes I watch the video.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

(COMMENT)

The only critical Convention that comes into play before 1950 is the Hague Regulation of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions 1 thru 3.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the important part was reiterated in Resolution 181 that you claim is still valid.

 

[Phoenall]

LINKS, or is this from the hate sites you frequent and so wont produce the evidence

Crying for links again while do not back your own claims with evidence?

List of Irgun attacks - Wikipedia

And you use wiki that is know to be faked on many of its entries, you can edit any entry you want once you have been accepted. Ask monte as he edits entries to meet with his POV .


Found one entry for a barrel and this was as a bomb not being rolled towards its intended target. So you dont have any evidence to support your claim again making you a LIAR


If you refuse to produce evidence why should I bother ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You do bother or else would not have suffered another hissy-fit.

"In Jerusalem, two days later, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around sixteen."
Irgun - Wikipedia

So where does it mention nails and glass, which was your claim ?

So it was sweets and congratulation cards?

SO YOU ADMIT YOU LIED ABOUT THE NAILS AND GLASS, WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU LIED ABOUT ?

 

[Phoenall]

3. UN Resolution 194 (III) (11 December 1948), is a non-binding General Assembly Resolution.

Indeed, but it was based on currently applicable international law.

Which was what exactly, state the law and what it said ?

It is probably too complicated for you but this is a good overview.

And it is probably beyond you to understand that there is no legal right of return



The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.




Very simple when you look IT NEVER BECAME INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Yes I watch the video.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

(COMMENT)

The only critical Convention that comes into play before 1950 is the Hague Regulation of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions 1 thru 3.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the important part was reiterated in Resolution 181 that you claim is still valid.

Which is ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Part of what you say is correct; but not quite taking into account the ramification of what you say

1b: Their is no application of colonialism in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). There is no true Non-self Governing Territory (NSGT) any where in the Middle East. See the UN Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) Listing: Non-Self-Governing Territories

Britain itself called Palestine a non self governing "legal entity" when its governance was passed to the UNPC.
Of course the UN dropped the ball and failed to protect the people and territory under its trust. And it still sits around with its thumb up its ass.

(COMMENT)

The original boundary as set up by the recommendation was not a Non-Self-Governing-Entity. WHY? Because the Provisional Government was established.

THEN, as the Arab League Forces moved across their respective frontiers, the status of that territory changed.

• The territory for which the Israeli Forces pursued the retreating Arab League Forces was the new sovereign territory for Israel.
• The territory for which the Jordanian Arab Legion capture was a predeclared annexation (to occur in the future as planned).
• The territory for which the Egyptian 3d Army captured (the Gaza Strip) was camouflaged as the All Arab Government (APG), but was actually a Military Governorship.
​

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

1a: Dismantling the Security Barrier/Wall presupposes that either every other country in the world have no right to control its borders and protect its citizens and territory;

The wall is not on a border.

(COMMENT)

Once again, we cover the same ground. The Israeli Security Barrier (The Wall) is a demarcation line with a single party enforcement. It denotes the frontier in which a physical and recognized change in political authority and geographical areas occurs. The Armistice Agreement are no longer valid. The two respective treaties apply with each having an Article on the issue of International Boundaries. However, the Israel Security Barrier was, in 1995, a clear frontier on which one side is enforced (Israeli) sovereignty and the other side is a political composite (Areas "A", "B" and "C").

You may refuse to recognize it; but, it is an enforced frontier. This frontier, being a demarcation, is covered under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

One might consider the Security Barrier a type of contemporary Marché (called a "territorial entity" today) or a demarcation line (a border between realms). In the French speaking areas like France, Belgium, a sector of Switzerland, Luxemburg and a small peace of Germany, there is a chain of stores, much like Sears, called the Le Bon Marché. In the typical European fashion of thinking about the concept, the Marché is the two sides (buyer and seller) or (good deal and not so good).

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep forgetting that it is illegal to acquire territory through war.

And what date did this come into force, as islamonazi's are still acquring land through war...........................

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

Not when it is a proven fact, unlike your many claims that you have no actual evidence for

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

Come on, Rocco, That is one of the biggest piles of crap you shovel.

I think what's silly are your attempts to retroactively apply laws.

Not so.

YES SO as shown by your many failed attempts at using UN resolutions as International law and then back dating them 50 years.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

Dont need to as the evidence is clear, the arab muslim nations refused to accept the right of return as they would lose control of their holy sites as theJews returned to their homes in Mecca and Medina

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The General Assembly Resolution 181(II) is not a binding agreement. The use of "valid" is not quite the right word (it should be more like "legitimacy"). The Resolution shows an "INTENT." And given that the implementation of that "intent" experienced no forceable interruption by a conspiratorial act of aggression on the part of the Arab League, - it was on its way to implementation.

The impact of a deliberate act on the part of the Arab League to negate or breach provisions of the Non-Binding Resolution negates any argument on the part of the Arab League creates a backlash. International legal systems take ill will as an integral element for development, whether nonperformance is an issue or not.

In case of Arab Leagues deliberate conspiratorial act to interrupt the self-determination of Israel in securing its sovereignty and independence has a consequence. That consequence is that Israel has the right to adjust its implementation as best fits the situation; AND can demand compensation and damages.

P F Tinmore,

Yes I watch the video.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 49 does not apply because the Fourth Geneva Convention did not
ENTER INTO FORCE until 21.10.1950

That is too complicated for you.

(COMMENT)

This idea is that you cannot retroactively apply a law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't watch the video.

(COMMENT)

The only critical Convention that comes into play before 1950 is the Hague Regulation of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions 1 thru 3.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the important part was reiterated in Resolution 181 that you claim is still valid.

(COMMENT)

First, let's make it clear that when I spoke of "critical Conventions," I was speaking of "conventions" and not Resolution 181(II) which is a entirely different kind of instrument.

The Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Arab Palestinians post November 1947, have absolutely no complaint against or argument that the the status of Resolution 181(II); or the degree to which it was implemented, WHEN they are the direct cause of interruption by the use of armed force mobilized in opposition.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Included in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence is the follow clause:

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Bleipriester]

Crying for links again while do not back your own claims with evidence?

List of Irgun attacks - Wikipedia

And you use wiki that is know to be faked on many of its entries, you can edit any entry you want once you have been accepted. Ask monte as he edits entries to meet with his POV .


Found one entry for a barrel and this was as a bomb not being rolled towards its intended target. So you dont have any evidence to support your claim again making you a LIAR


If you refuse to produce evidence why should I bother ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You do bother or else would not have suffered another hissy-fit.

"In Jerusalem, two days later, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around sixteen."
Irgun - Wikipedia

So where does it mention nails and glass, which was your claim ?

So it was sweets and congratulation cards?

SO YOU ADMIT YOU LIED ABOUT THE NAILS AND GLASS, WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU LIED ABOUT ?

No. Nails and Glass. Improvised bomb. The question, however, is why it does concern you of what the bomb was made of rather than how many people it killed. Oh, right, you give a shit about people.