The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

 

[Challenger]

Out of date, ha ha ha.

Hamas Egypt ties hit new low - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

January 2014...Yup, out of date.

Anyone who's been following the situation knows that Egypt, under Sisi, and Hamas are not exactly friends now either.

They don't have to be friends. Sisi does what Saudi Arabia tells him to do, and King Salman is having second thoughts about Hamas; he's more scared of IS.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where did you get that. Teach me something.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, You cannot go through Gaza, unless you take the HAMAS tunnel or go through the Route 4 Border Checkpoint. It's huge, you can't miss it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can play that game pretending that there is no Israel, but that is just nonsense.

(COMMENT)

There are consequences to that argument.

• The IDF would not be a foreign army. So there would be no occupation.
• The Arab-Israeli conflict would become a Civil War between two factions within the same turf.
• There would be no State of Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip would be just regional names.
• There would be no point to an ICC Inquiry, because it would be a totally domestic matter.

There are a bunch of little things that would change. But how do you define an international border. And What then, is the basis for the ICJ Ruling on the Wall, since there is no border.

Most Respectfully,
R

I just asked a simple question and you are ducking.

About the ICj, my guess is that they don't know.

(COMMENT)

A border is delineated by by an ability to control it. Once a nation/state is recognized, that recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. Even the UN cannot take it back. The recognition of a state may be "express" or "tacit." The tacit recognition is any act which implies the intention of recognizing the state. As for the Security Barrier, it doesn't matter where it is placed, it would all be inside Palestine and a domestic dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders can only be defined by treaty.

Recognition, even by the UN, is a political move that has nothing to do with the law. The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize states.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.

The UN cannot make a state. But when the UN votes to admit a state, that is a "tacit" recognition. For instance, the border between Israel and Jordan is inclusive of the West Bank, by treaty. Yet, Israel has recognized the West Bank as independent. Thus, there again you see the recognition kicking in.

But I'm not kidding. where did you get the notion that an international border had to be by treaty. If that is true, then the Secretary-General of the UN is in trouble. The northern boundary is an Armistice Line. That wound mean there is no South Korea. Of course we know that is not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

Palestine's international borders have changed since 100 years ago. But, according to your own definitions, if the Palestinians were to sign a treaty with the Israelis, would you accept that? Or would you still fight to the last Palestinian from your armchair?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

And what are they resisting when they target children ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused. When looking at sovereignty, you must examine it in both "theory" and how it is actually "practiced."

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?
Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are:

1 Occupation
2 Annexation
3 Accretion
4 Cession
5 Prescription​

Or! Stated another way:

A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognized by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Effective occupation
• 5 Prescription

Prescription

Prescription is related to occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.

Prescription, in international law, is sovereignty transfer of a territory by the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. It is analogous to the common law doctrine of easement by prescription for private real estate. This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.

SOURCE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

(REMEMBERING)

A law only means something if it is realistically enforceable. Since the 1945 UN Charter was written, there have been a number of expansions that either used force, or coercion; or a combination of the two. Just to name a few of the anomalies:

• Russia and the Annexation of the Crimea (2014)
• The UN peace process (1991) stalled --- as of mid-2012, the UN is holding direct negotiations between Morocco and the Polisario, Independence Movement by guerrillas of the Polisario Front opened an insurgency.
• Indonesia and the Annexation of Western New Guinea (1969)
• Israel and the Annexation of the Golan Heights (1967)
• India and the Annexation of Goa (1961)
• Abyssinia and the Annexation of British Ogaden (1954)
• China and the Annexation of Tibet (1951)
• Jordan and the Annexation of the West Bank (1950)

The proscription against the acquisition of territory through the use of force is relatively new as international concepts go. The institution idea of legality derived from the UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 2(4)], which was later restated by the Security Council in Resolution 242 (1967) by stating that: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"... That raised the bar a bit, because the Charter stated:

• From the Preamble: "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and"
• Chapter I Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

(COMMENT)

Technically, a "Treaty" is just but ONE process in the procession of gaining territorial sovereignty by "Cession."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

How courageous of you to promote Islamic terrorism in furtherance of your Joooooooo hatreds.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

This is a really good observation by "Challenger."

Out of date, ha ha ha.

Hamas Egypt ties hit new low - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

January 2014...Yup, out of date.

Anyone who's been following the situation knows that Egypt, under Sisi, and Hamas are not exactly friends now either.

They don't have to be friends. Sisi does what Saudi Arabia tells him to do, and King Salman is having second thoughts about Hamas; he's more scared of IS.

(COMMENT)

None of the Arab/Muslim countries in the region of the original mandates territories, and Saudi Arabia, want to see DAESH (AKA: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, AKA Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, AKA: Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham, AKA: Islamic State) want to be in the position of allowing DAESH to be on both sides of them (a two front scenario).

The Western and Regional (Arab League) Counterintelligence and Counter-Terrorist Activities are watching the development of DAESH in the Gaza Strip. If the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) were to faultier, and DAESH were to get a foothold in the Gaza Strip, that would put several countries in an unacceptable position. In particular, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; but Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be aggravated as well.

Daesh warns Hamas
BEIRUT: Daesh terrorists have threatened to turn the Gaza Strip into another of their Middle East fiefdoms, accusing Hamas, the organization that rules the Palestinian territory, of being insufficiently stringent about religious enforcement.
“We will uproot the state of the Jews (Israel) and you and Fatah, and all of the secularists are nothing and you will be overrun by our creeping multitudes,” said a masked Daesh member in the message addressed to the “tyrants of Hamas,” Reuters said.
SOURCE: Arab News Originally Published by Reuters — Thursday 2 July 2015 /// --- Printed by AN Tuesday, 14 July 2015 | 27 Ramadan 1436 AH

Raed Salah slams Daesh’s threats to topple Hamas in Gaza
‘Daesh is harmful to Islam,’ Palestinian resistance icon tells Anadolu Agency
Attacks by the Daesh militant group in the Gaza Strip could lead to chaos in the region, Raed Salah, the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, has said.
Speaking to Anadolu Agency in Istanbul on Wednesday, Salah – a longstanding icon of the Palestinian resistance – voiced concern about possible Daesh attacks in the Hamas-run coastal enclave.
“No one can predict what would happen if Daesh became active in the Gaza Strip,” Salah said.
SOURCE: Anadolu Agency 08 July 2015 16:45 (Last updated 08 July 2015 16:47)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused. When looking at sovereignty, you must examine it in both "theory" and how it is actually "practiced."

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?
Ans Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are:

1 Occupation
2 Annexation
3 Accretion
4 Cession
5 Prescription​

Or! Stated another way:

A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognized by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Effective occupation
• 5 Prescription

Prescription

Prescription is related to occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.

Prescription, in international law, is sovereignty transfer of a territory by the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. It is analogous to the common law doctrine of easement by prescription for private real estate. This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.

SOURCE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

(REMEMBERING)

A law only means something if it is realistically enforceable. Since the 1945 UN Charter was written, there have been a number of expansions that either used force, or coercion; or a combination of the two. Just to name a few of the anomalies:

• Russia and the Annexation of the Crimea (2014)
• The UN peace process (1991) stalled --- as of mid-2012, the UN is holding direct negotiations between Morocco and the Polisario, Independence Movement by guerrillas of the Polisario Front opened an insurgency.
• Indonesia and the Annexation of Western New Guinea (1969)
• Israel and the Annexation of the Golan Heights (1967)
• India and the Annexation of Goa (1961)
• Abyssinia and the Annexation of British Ogaden (1954)
• China and the Annexation of Tibet (1951)
• Jordan and the Annexation of the West Bank (1950)

The proscription against the acquisition of territory through the use of force is relatively new as international concepts go. The institution idea of legality derived from the UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 2(4)], which was later restated by the Security Council in Resolution 242 (1967) by stating that: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"... That raised the bar a bit, because the Charter stated:

• From the Preamble: "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and"
• Chapter I Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

(COMMENT)

Technically, a "Treaty" is just but ONE process in the procession of gaining territorial sovereignty by "Cession."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel annexed the Golan in 1981. I was there at the time.

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

Bullshit.. Palestinians have MUCH work to do reconstructing their own political representation and process.
That's the LARGER part of the problem. Without organization and consensus -- all these actions that you think are so valiant -- are nothing but futile street theater. Street theater that ends in massive setbacks to the cause almost every time they are exercised. There needs to be more value on Pali quality of life TODAY and less on blaming others for their plight..

Fireworks rockets and floatytillas are not resistance. They are a demonstration that the Palis value perceptions over actual progress for their lives.. They think nothing of trading buildings, hospitals, infrastructure and lives for "publicity stunts"..

 

[Roudy]

Out of date.

Doesn't get better than this, Egypt now executing Hamas members. Ok so we'll take the terrorist label off, but we'll still you as terrorists. Ha ha ha.

Death sentences test fragile Hamas-Egypt ties - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

Mohammed Morsi waves during his trial at a court in the outskirts of Cairo, May 16, 2015. (photo by REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany)
Egypt-Hamas ties took a dramatic turn May 16 as the Cairo Criminal Court referred the death sentence against ousted President Mohammed Morsi, along with 105 others, including the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, to Egypt's Grand Mufti.

Hamas was provoked by the Egyptian ruling that targeted some Hamas members, including a prisoner and several who are now dead, namely Raed al-Atar, who was killed in the Gaza war last August; Hossam al-Sanea, who was killed in 2008; Tayseer Abu Snaimeh, who was killed during an Israeli raid on Rafah in 2011; and Hassan Salameh, who has been detained in Israeli prisons since 1996 and is sentenced to 48 years in prison.

On May 17, Hamas described the Egyptian ruling as a massacre against its members, adding that the ruling disregards human values, is unfair, was taken in the absence of evidences, is based on falsified facts, and provides a cover for Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

“The Egyptian ruling against a number of Hamas members is deplorable; it has tainted the record of the Egyptian judiciary, and confirms that it is a politicized case,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said May 16.

Hamas never thought that its military commanders would be sentenced to death by the Egyptian court; it always thought it would be by an Israeli one. This is because none of the movement’s members were proved to be involved in armed operations on the Egyptian territory. This decision may break the thin thread between Hamas and Cairo.

Yup. they're not dead yet.

But they're locked up in a cage with a death sentence hanging over their heads. Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

Out of date, ha ha ha.

Hamas Egypt ties hit new low - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

January 2014...Yup, out of date.

Anyone who's been following the situation knows that Egypt, under Sisi, and Hamas are not exactly friends now either.

Israel and Sisi are on the same page.

 

[RoccoR]

Hollie, Challenger, et al,

In this discussion, "Hollie" --- in that sarcastic way, is correct.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

How courageous of you to promote Islamic terrorism in furtherance of your Joooooooo hatreds.

(COMMENT)

Some "International Humanitarian Concepts" are contradictory to "International Humanitarian Law."

There are several General Assembly Resolutions that use this peculiar language concerning struggle. The five most commonly cited by the Hostile Arab Palestinian are these:

A/RES/2649 30 November 1970
Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;

A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

A/RES/35/35 14 November 1980
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

A/RES/36/9 28 October 1981
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43 3 December 1982
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
​

The common thread that these five resolutions have in common, that the passage that they believe givens them the right to assault Israel is derivative of the first 1970 resolution; AND, they are concerning "self-determination" as it relates to the "granting of independence to colonial countries." It is what makes the argument about the Jewish Immigrants being colonial settlers from Europe so important to the pro-Palestinians.

The way that the pro-Palestinians (including the Jihadist and Terrorists) use these passages is as "justification" for for the continues "armed struggle by any means" and the authorization to violate Customary International Humanitarian Law and the conventions of the International Humanitarian Law (primarily the 1907 Hague Convention, and the Fourth Geneva Convention). The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) logic is that, not so dissimilar than that advocated by "Challenger." (Posting #681 --- "Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.) According to Khaled Meshal, Political Bureau Chief - HAMAS, the Resistance Movement is attempting to liberate Palestine, in the sense that it is the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied [(Less Jordan) "The unity of the Palestinian land: The West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip and the occupied land of 1948"]; unlike the PLO, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not recognize Israel and its right to exist. The Resistance Movement believes that Israel has no legitimacy and no right to to Jerusalem at all. The HoAP Islamic Resistance consider that any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. And this has not change since the pre-Independence HoAP of 1948 set this theme and initiated the solemn oath: "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."

So, there are two parallel arguments. The first being that they are the indigenous population from more than a half-century ago, fighting against colonial settlement and for independence. The second being the Jewish Immigration and exercising the right of self-determination was an act of aggression on the part of the Jewish People. In this regard, the outcome of the Israeli War of Independence had no impact and will never have an impact for the purpose of settlement. The Islamic Resistance Movement carries-on the legacy struggle left by the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army that fought the Israelis in 1948-1949.

That HoAP have come to believe that they have every right to use any methodology, and tactic, and any strategy to achieve their end: "fighting the Zionist Jews occupiers, the aggressors, and we will fight anyone who tries to attack us or usurp our rights or occupy our land."

Nothing in all this gives the HoAP the right to violate any aspect of Customary IHL, or IHL Proper. Thus the HoAP cannot really use this "all available means" as a license to use Jihadist coercion, or terrorist activities.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

ForeverYoung436

I stand corrected.

Israel annexed the Golan in 1981. I was there at the time.

(APOLOGY)

You are correct.

Humbly,
R

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

How courageous of you to promote Islamic terrorism in furtherance of your Joooooooo hatreds.

Can't hate something that doesn't exist, what's a "Joooooooooo" anyway, never heard of it.

 

[Challenger]

Out of date.

Doesn't get better than this, Egypt now executing Hamas members. Ok so we'll take the terrorist label off, but we'll still you as terrorists. Ha ha ha.

Death sentences test fragile Hamas-Egypt ties - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

Mohammed Morsi waves during his trial at a court in the outskirts of Cairo, May 16, 2015. (photo by REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany)
Egypt-Hamas ties took a dramatic turn May 16 as the Cairo Criminal Court referred the death sentence against ousted President Mohammed Morsi, along with 105 others, including the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, to Egypt's Grand Mufti.

Hamas was provoked by the Egyptian ruling that targeted some Hamas members, including a prisoner and several who are now dead, namely Raed al-Atar, who was killed in the Gaza war last August; Hossam al-Sanea, who was killed in 2008; Tayseer Abu Snaimeh, who was killed during an Israeli raid on Rafah in 2011; and Hassan Salameh, who has been detained in Israeli prisons since 1996 and is sentenced to 48 years in prison.

On May 17, Hamas described the Egyptian ruling as a massacre against its members, adding that the ruling disregards human values, is unfair, was taken in the absence of evidences, is based on falsified facts, and provides a cover for Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

“The Egyptian ruling against a number of Hamas members is deplorable; it has tainted the record of the Egyptian judiciary, and confirms that it is a politicized case,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said May 16.

Hamas never thought that its military commanders would be sentenced to death by the Egyptian court; it always thought it would be by an Israeli one. This is because none of the movement’s members were proved to be involved in armed operations on the Egyptian territory. This decision may break the thin thread between Hamas and Cairo.

Yup. they're not dead yet.

But they're locked up in a cage with a death sentence hanging over their heads. Ha ha ha.

So what, you're still out of date.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hollie, Challenger, et al,

In this discussion, "Hollie" --- in that sarcastic way, is correct.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

How courageous of you to promote Islamic terrorism in furtherance of your Joooooooo hatreds.

(COMMENT)

Some "International Humanitarian Concepts" are contradictory to "International Humanitarian Law."

There are several General Assembly Resolutions that use this peculiar language concerning struggle. The five most commonly cited by the Hostile Arab Palestinian are these:

A/RES/2649 30 November 1970
Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;

A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

A/RES/35/35 14 November 1980
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

A/RES/36/9 28 October 1981
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43 3 December 1982
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
​

The common thread that these five resolutions have in common, that the passage that they believe givens them the right to assault Israel is derivative of the first 1970 resolution; AND, they are concerning "self-determination" as it relates to the "granting of independence to colonial countries." It is what makes the argument about the Jewish Immigrants being colonial settlers from Europe so important to the pro-Palestinians.

The way that the pro-Palestinians (including the Jihadist and Terrorists) use these passages is as "justification" for for the continues "armed struggle by any means" and the authorization to violate Customary International Humanitarian Law and the conventions of the International Humanitarian Law (primarily the 1907 Hague Convention, and the Fourth Geneva Convention). The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) logic is that, not so dissimilar than that advocated by "Challenger." (Posting #681 --- "Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.) According to Khaled Meshal, Political Bureau Chief - HAMAS, the Resistance Movement is attempting to liberate Palestine, in the sense that it is the entirety of the territory to which the former Mandate applied [(Less Jordan) "The unity of the Palestinian land: The West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip and the occupied land of 1948"]; unlike the PLO, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not recognize Israel and its right to exist. The Resistance Movement believes that Israel has no legitimacy and no right to to Jerusalem at all. The HoAP Islamic Resistance consider that any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. And this has not change since the pre-Independence HoAP of 1948 set this theme and initiated the solemn oath: "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."

So, there are two parallel arguments. The first being that they are the indigenous population from more than a half-century ago, fighting against colonial settlement and for independence. The second being the Jewish Immigration and exercising the right of self-determination was an act of aggression on the part of the Jewish People. In this regard, the outcome of the Israeli War of Independence had no impact and will never have an impact for the purpose of settlement. The Islamic Resistance Movement carries-on the legacy struggle left by the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army that fought the Israelis in 1948-1949.

That HoAP have come to believe that they have every right to use any methodology, and tactic, and any strategy to achieve their end: "fighting the Zionist Jews occupiers, the aggressors, and we will fight anyone who tries to attack us or usurp our rights or occupy our land."

Nothing in all this gives the HoAP the right to violate any aspect of Customary IHL, or IHL Proper. Thus the HoAP cannot really use this "all available means" as a license to use Jihadist coercion, or terrorist activities.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, there are two parallel arguments. The first being that they are the indigenous population from more than a half-century ago, fighting against colonial settlement and for independence.​

Indeed, and everything I have seen so far shows that they are correct.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

Yes it is. If those are the only means of resistance to oppression open to them.

Bullshit.. Palestinians have MUCH work to do reconstructing their own political representation and process.
That's the LARGER part of the problem. Without organization and consensus -- all these actions that you think are so valiant -- are nothing but futile street theater. Street theater that ends in massive setbacks to the cause almost every time they are exercised. There needs to be more value on Pali quality of life TODAY and less on blaming others for their plight..

Fireworks rockets and floatytillas are not resistance. They are a demonstration that the Palis value perceptions over actual progress for their lives.. They think nothing of trading buildings, hospitals, infrastructure and lives for "publicity stunts"..

The "PA" in Ramallah is an illegal government set up and supported by the US and Israel. As long as that exist the political landscape in Palestine is going to suck. Of course that is the purpose of it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where did you get that. Teach me something.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, You cannot go through Gaza, unless you take the HAMAS tunnel or go through the Route 4 Border Checkpoint. It's huge, you can't miss it.

I just asked a simple question and you are ducking.

About the ICj, my guess is that they don't know.

(COMMENT)

A border is delineated by by an ability to control it. Once a nation/state is recognized, that recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. Even the UN cannot take it back. The recognition of a state may be "express" or "tacit." The tacit recognition is any act which implies the intention of recognizing the state. As for the Security Barrier, it doesn't matter where it is placed, it would all be inside Palestine and a domestic dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders can only be defined by treaty.

Recognition, even by the UN, is a political move that has nothing to do with the law. The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize states.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.

The UN cannot make a state. But when the UN votes to admit a state, that is a "tacit" recognition. For instance, the border between Israel and Jordan is inclusive of the West Bank, by treaty. Yet, Israel has recognized the West Bank as independent. Thus, there again you see the recognition kicking in.

But I'm not kidding. where did you get the notion that an international border had to be by treaty. If that is true, then the Secretary-General of the UN is in trouble. The northern boundary is an Armistice Line. That wound mean there is no South Korea. Of course we know that is not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

Palestine's international borders have changed since 100 years ago. But, according to your own definitions, if the Palestinians were to sign a treaty with the Israelis, would you accept that? Or would you still fight to the last Palestinian from your armchair?

I haven't seen a change in Palestine's international borders. Could you provide a link?

Any treaty with Israel would have to be ratified by the Palestinian People including the refugees.

I don't see anything coming down the pike that would pass muster.

 

[Roudy]

Out of date.

Doesn't get better than this, Egypt now executing Hamas members. Ok so we'll take the terrorist label off, but we'll still you as terrorists. Ha ha ha.

Death sentences test fragile Hamas-Egypt ties - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

Mohammed Morsi waves during his trial at a court in the outskirts of Cairo, May 16, 2015. (photo by REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany)
Egypt-Hamas ties took a dramatic turn May 16 as the Cairo Criminal Court referred the death sentence against ousted President Mohammed Morsi, along with 105 others, including the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, to Egypt's Grand Mufti.

Hamas was provoked by the Egyptian ruling that targeted some Hamas members, including a prisoner and several who are now dead, namely Raed al-Atar, who was killed in the Gaza war last August; Hossam al-Sanea, who was killed in 2008; Tayseer Abu Snaimeh, who was killed during an Israeli raid on Rafah in 2011; and Hassan Salameh, who has been detained in Israeli prisons since 1996 and is sentenced to 48 years in prison.

On May 17, Hamas described the Egyptian ruling as a massacre against its members, adding that the ruling disregards human values, is unfair, was taken in the absence of evidences, is based on falsified facts, and provides a cover for Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

“The Egyptian ruling against a number of Hamas members is deplorable; it has tainted the record of the Egyptian judiciary, and confirms that it is a politicized case,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said May 16.

Hamas never thought that its military commanders would be sentenced to death by the Egyptian court; it always thought it would be by an Israeli one. This is because none of the movement’s members were proved to be involved in armed operations on the Egyptian territory. This decision may break the thin thread between Hamas and Cairo.

Yup. they're not dead yet.

But they're locked up in a cage with a death sentence hanging over their heads. Ha ha ha.

So what, you're still out of date.

Bzzzzz wrong, that's current. They're still in a rat cage, still have a death sentence hanging over their heads, which can be processed at will. That's how you deal with Islamist animals, there is only one language they respond to, and Arab leaders understand this better than anyone else.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where did you get that. Teach me something.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, You cannot go through Gaza, unless you take the HAMAS tunnel or go through the Route 4 Border Checkpoint. It's huge, you can't miss it.

(COMMENT)

A border is delineated by by an ability to control it. Once a nation/state is recognized, that recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. Even the UN cannot take it back. The recognition of a state may be "express" or "tacit." The tacit recognition is any act which implies the intention of recognizing the state. As for the Security Barrier, it doesn't matter where it is placed, it would all be inside Palestine and a domestic dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders can only be defined by treaty.

Recognition, even by the UN, is a political move that has nothing to do with the law. The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize states.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.

The UN cannot make a state. But when the UN votes to admit a state, that is a "tacit" recognition. For instance, the border between Israel and Jordan is inclusive of the West Bank, by treaty. Yet, Israel has recognized the West Bank as independent. Thus, there again you see the recognition kicking in.

But I'm not kidding. where did you get the notion that an international border had to be by treaty. If that is true, then the Secretary-General of the UN is in trouble. The northern boundary is an Armistice Line. That wound mean there is no South Korea. Of course we know that is not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

Palestine's international borders have changed since 100 years ago. But, according to your own definitions, if the Palestinians were to sign a treaty with the Israelis, would you accept that? Or would you still fight to the last Palestinian from your armchair?

I haven't seen a change in Palestine's international borders. Could you provide a link?

Any treaty with Israel would have to be ratified by the Palestinian People including the refugees.

I don't see anything coming down the pike that would pass muster.

Borders? Palestine has borders? Ha ha ha.