The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well you might see it that way. But is it true? Or, is more Arab Palestinian wishful thinking?

Again the ground truth is hard to deny. When you come up upon a boundary controlled by Israelis on one side and someone else on the other, it is what it is.

Occupation.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 War of Independence (for Israel) was essentially fought to make that determination. The reason that the Armistice Commission did not make an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians, was that NO country because the customary Law on Treaties, and who are capable of entering into a Treaty did not recognize a separate state.

The entire Arab League practiced Ostrich Diplomacy .

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well you might see it that way. But is it true? Or, is more Arab Palestinian wishful thinking?

Again the ground truth is hard to deny. When you come up upon a boundary controlled by Israelis on one side and someone else on the other, it is what it is.

Occupation.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 War of Independence (for Israel) was essentially fought to make that determination. The reason that the Armistice Commission did not make an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians, was that NO country because the customary Law on Treaties, and who are capable of entering into a Treaty did not recognize a separate state.

The entire Arab League practiced Ostrich Diplomacy .

View attachment 104170​

Most Respectfully,
R

Or perhaps they were not a party to the conflict. The armistice lines restricted the movement of armies. They divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And your comment here is one of the reasons that we need to protect Israel.

That is one of the thing that makes Oslo an illegal agreement.

(COMMENT)

This is a case of changing the law after the fact.

International Community cannot praise the participant, pass-out Nobel Peace Prizes, and slap each other on the back and say what a good thing was done; Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin 1994. THEN turn-around and say the the Oslo Accord were illegal just because you don't like the outcome. To do this is an example where the minority group (Israel) is being subject to the pressures of a The Tyranny of the Majority (the International Community).

In these times, with UN Security Council Resolutions like SC/RES/2334 --- the mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And your comment here is one of the reasons that we need to protect Israel.

That is one of the thing that makes Oslo an illegal agreement.

(COMMENT)

This is a case of changing the law after the fact.

International Community cannot praise the participant, pass-out Nobel Peace Prizes, and slap each other on the back and say what a good thing was done; Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin 1994. THEN turn-around and say the the Oslo Accord were illegal just because you don't like the outcome. To do this is an example where the minority group (Israel) is being subject to the pressures of a The Tyranny of the Majority (the International Community).

In these times, with UN Security Council Resolutions like SC/RES/2334 --- the mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pfffft.

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.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, yes --- among the possibilities is something on this order.

Or perhaps they were not a party to the conflict. The armistice lines restricted the movement of armies. They divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Being a participant or a contributor to a conflict is not always the same as being a Party to the Conflict. There were a number of Arab League participants that provided resources against Israel.

The Arab Palestinians contributed what resource were available to include the:

Irregulars:

• Holy War Army
• Arab Liberation Army

Your explanation is --- OHH --- so close. Armistice Lines are established to freeze forward motion into the battle space. It does not freeze realignment, replenishments, and replacement activity. Nor is the movement of pre-position stocks up to the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area). From a military standpoint, it is a timeout. But from a political perspective - all the parties to the conflict cease the use of force to violate the armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement.

"The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose."
SOURCE: Article Written by:
The Late Eugene W. Rostow was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.
He played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, yes --- among the possibilities is something on this order.

Or perhaps they were not a party to the conflict. The armistice lines restricted the movement of armies. They divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Being a participant or a contributor to a conflict is not always the same as being a Party to the Conflict. There were a number of Arab League participants that provided resources against Israel.

The Arab Palestinians contributed what resource were available to include the:

Irregulars:

• Holy War Army
• Arab Liberation Army

Your explanation is --- OHH --- so close. Armistice Lines are established to freeze forward motion into the battle space. It does not freeze realignment, replenishments, and replacement activity. Nor is the movement of pre-position stocks up to the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area). From a military standpoint, it is a timeout. But from a political perspective - all the parties to the conflict cease the use of force to violate the armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement.

"The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose."
SOURCE: Article Written by:
The Late Eugene W. Rostow was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.
He played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice agreements did not end Israel's war against the Palestinians.

The British passed the Mandate to the UNPC who were a no show.

The UNCCP was supposed to resolve important issues but they flopped too.

I guess that is why there is BDS. Everyone else has their thumb up their ass.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen you misinterpret this phrase any number of times.

Pfffft.

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.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

(COMMENT)

You can test whether your interpretation is a good approximation:

• If your interpretation prevents the the Parties to the conflict the ability to make peace.
​

I think if you check, this relates to rights that pertain to:

• Family honor and rights,
• Matters of private property,
• Matters of religious convictions and practice,
• Private and Real property rights from confiscation,
• Matter in the moral protection of women and their honor (against rape, pillage and plunder),
• Human treatment of prisoners (civil or military),
• etc ---
​

These are similar to the special conditions that apply to the entire population, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

You were very close on the matter of "curtailment by agreement." That is an Article 8 variant of the rights of a Protected Person --- THAT in no circumstances can a Protected Person renounce their rights presented under the Fourth Geneva Convention Convention; and by extension the 1907 Hague Regulation. Under this article no special agreements can be made to waive these rights unless it conforms with local law.

BUT OTHERWISE, this concept you put forth has no bearing on the Oslo Agreement. Your strict application would prevent the parties to a conflict to negotiate a Peace Treaty to conclude a war.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen you misinterpret this phrase any number of times.

Pfffft.

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.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

(COMMENT)

You can test whether your interpretation is a good approximation:

• If your interpretation prevents the the Parties to the conflict the ability to make peace.
​

I think if you check, this relates to rights that pertain to:

• Family honor and rights,
• Matters of private property,
• Matters of religious convictions and practice,
• Private and Real property rights from confiscation,
• Matter in the moral protection of women and their honor (against rape, pillage and plunder),
• Human treatment of prisoners (civil or military),
• etc ---
​

These are similar to the special conditions that apply to the entire population, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

You were very close on the matter of "curtailment by agreement." That is an Article 8 variant of the rights of a Protected Person --- THAT in no circumstances can a Protected Person renounce their rights presented under the Fourth Geneva Convention Convention; and by extension the 1907 Hague Regulation. Under this article no special agreements can be made to waive these rights unless it conforms with local law.

BUT OTHERWISE, this concept you put forth has no bearing on the Oslo Agreement. Your strict application would prevent the parties to a conflict to negotiate a Peace Treaty to conclude a war.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Only if the rights of the people are abrogated.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, yes --- among the possibilities is something on this order.

Or perhaps they were not a party to the conflict. The armistice lines restricted the movement of armies. They divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Being a participant or a contributor to a conflict is not always the same as being a Party to the Conflict. There were a number of Arab League participants that provided resources against Israel.

The Arab Palestinians contributed what resource were available to include the:

Irregulars:

• Holy War Army
• Arab Liberation Army

Your explanation is --- OHH --- so close. Armistice Lines are established to freeze forward motion into the battle space. It does not freeze realignment, replenishments, and replacement activity. Nor is the movement of pre-position stocks up to the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area). From a military standpoint, it is a timeout. But from a political perspective - all the parties to the conflict cease the use of force to violate the armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement.

"The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose."
SOURCE: Article Written by:
The Late Eugene W. Rostow was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.
He played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice agreements did not end Israel's war against the Palestinians.

The British passed the Mandate to the UNPC who were a no show.

The UNCCP was supposed to resolve important issues but they flopped too.

I guess that is why there is BDS. Everyone else has their thumb up their ass.

I believe you're mistaken to worship at the altar of the BDS'ers. What I see here in the Great Satan™ is that in a very real sense, they are viewed as just another hate group with an agenda similar to CAIR and other Islamist supremacists.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just because you see the issue through anti-Israeli lenses; does not mean that everyone else sees it with the issue through same fog and frosted color.

Not true. Only if the rights of the people are abrogated.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT touch any individual rights of the people. It is an Agreement Set between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People).

The intent of agreements, such as this, is to promote security and sustainable development. This would, if the conflict subsides, a state for enhanced commercial growth.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just because you see the issue through anti-Israeli lenses; does not mean that everyone else sees it with the issue through same fog and frosted color.

Not true. Only if the rights of the people are abrogated.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT touch any individual rights of the people. It is an Agreement Set between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People).

The intent of agreements, such as this, is to promote security and sustainable development. This would, if the conflict subsides, a state for enhanced commercial growth.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo allows a lot of rights abuses. That can't be legal.

Development? There is no development.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just because you see the issue through anti-Israeli lenses; does not mean that everyone else sees it with the issue through same fog and frosted color.

Not true. Only if the rights of the people are abrogated.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT touch any individual rights of the people. It is an Agreement Set between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People).

The intent of agreements, such as this, is to promote security and sustainable development. This would, if the conflict subsides, a state for enhanced commercial growth.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo allows a lot of rights abuses. That can't be legal.

Development? There is no development.

Actually, there is a lot of development taking place in Islamic terrorist'istan. Much of that development takes place below ground.


Egypt army destroys dozens of Gaza tunnels

Egypt army destroys dozens of Gaza tunnels

The Egyptian army announced on Sunday that it destroyed 31 tunnels between the Sinai and the Gaza Strip in October.


See what a dedicated UN funded welfare agency can accomplish when it showers Islamist terrorists with boatloads of cash?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

Fatah: UN vote means Fatah will kill Israelis - PMW Bulletins

Did Fatah thank 14 countries
for granting it permission to kill Israelis?

Fatah cartoons:


Before UN vote

After UN vote: “Thank You!”

 

[fanger]

Fatah: UN vote means Fatah will kill Israelis - PMW Bulletins

Did Fatah thank 14 countries
for granting it permission to kill Israelis?

Fatah cartoons:


Before UN vote

After UN vote: “Thank You!”

That is the opinion of one person, Ilan Mazuz, Living in Netivot
Registrant Organization: PMW
Registrant Street: 61 Malchei Israel ST.
Registrant City: Netivot

 

[Hollie]

Fatah: UN vote means Fatah will kill Israelis - PMW Bulletins

Did Fatah thank 14 countries
for granting it permission to kill Israelis?

Fatah cartoons:


Before UN vote

After UN vote: “Thank You!”

That is the opinion of one person, Ilan Mazuz, Living in Netivot
Registrant Organization: PMW
Registrant Street: 61 Malchei Israel ST.
Registrant City: Netivot

If you stole that from Juan Cole's blog, be sure to add that attribution.

The islamo-cartoons were posted on the Fatah Death Cult Facebook page.

Interesting how Dark Ages Islamic terrorists are quick to use western innovated technology (which their retrograde ideology wouldn't allow them to innovate on their own) in the service of their Death Cult.

 

[MJB12741]

Both Labor and Likud governments have funded settlers, many religious extremists, and gifted them the best land.

Meanwhile, Palestinians are denied building approval for homes, even a chicken coop. If in Area C they throw up a granny flat it's promptly demolished by army bulldozers.


The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

The Sydney Morn. Herald take is stupid and unimpressive. The West Bank was "won" in war from Jordan. True fact. JORDAN -- had renounced all interests in the property after being ATTACKED by Pali leadership militarily at a time when the Palis HAD the entire West Bank under Jordanian Mandate. The Kingdom washed their hands of the West Bank and RENOUNCED title.

So "the land won in war" was abdicated. Clear and simple. The "palestinians" became Israel's problem. AND STILL after 50 years, the Palis can't organize and support a leadership without a bloody Civil war.

That is so true. Jordan was so relieved to sacrifice the land to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with. Truly, Jordan is the smartest player in the Middle East & now even has open borders with Israel to boost their economy from Israeli tourists.whom the Jordanians treat like kings.

 

[fanger]

Fatah: UN vote means Fatah will kill Israelis - PMW Bulletins

Did Fatah thank 14 countries
for granting it permission to kill Israelis?

Fatah cartoons:


Before UN vote

After UN vote: “Thank You!”

That is the opinion of one person, Ilan Mazuz, Living in Netivot
Registrant Organization: PMW
Registrant Street: 61 Malchei Israel ST.
Registrant City: Netivot

If you stole that from Juan Cole's blog, be sure to add that attribution.

The islamo-cartoons were posted on the Fatah Death Cult Facebook page.

Interesting how Dark Ages Islamic terrorists are quick to use western innovated technology (which their retrograde ideology wouldn't allow them to innovate on their own) in the service of their Death Cult.

Stole nothing, the information is publicly available by doing a whois search http://whois.domaintools.com/palwatch.org

 

[fanger]

It gets better,

Israel “Reducing” Ties With Backers Of UN Anti Settlement Resolution – InvestmentWatch

I'm not a great Chess player, but I can see these Countries next move

 

[fanger]

The resolution demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,” but it imposes no specific consequences if Israel fails to do so. In that sense it is as toothless as all its predecessors.

But without the fig leaf of a peace process to hide behind, Israel clearly fears that patience is running out and that this resolution will boost Palestinian-led efforts to hold Israel accountable – particularly the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, told CNN that the resolution “encourages boycotts and sanctions against Israel.”

But Israel, already in a weak position internationally, seems determined to antagonize the world as much as possible.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who also holds the foreign ministry portfolio, has ordered that “working ties” be limited with 12 of the 14 countries on the Security Council that backed the resolution – the two others, Malaysia and Venezuela, have no diplomatic ties with Israel.

This means, in effect, that Israel is imposing diplomatic sanctions on the likes of China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France.