The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Roudy]

^^^^^
Actually Rocco is a truly unbiased, informed and educated poster who simply posts facts. Which is why the MonkeyNazi resorted to insulting Rocco, just for posting the truth.

 

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

About the only part of that you got correct is that Ataturk and the Turkish Government was the successor.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, for heavens sake. And I even numbered them for you.

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:

(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

Indeed, there are two methods to acquire land: one by treaty and the other by fource.

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.​

And we see a lot of that from the Palestinians so that acquisition is illegitimate.

(COMMENT)

First, the Arab-Palestinians were NOT protecting or contesting sovereignty as an "original sovereign." They have not held any form of sovereignty for more than a eight centuries. So you would be incorrect there. The "original sovereign in this case would have been the Ottoman Empire, that surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers assumed control through the process of "Cession." Nowhere in the transfer were the Palestine people ever addressed. Nowhere in the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, or the Treaty of Lausanne, mention the inhabitance of the territory that was defined by the Allied Powers. Neither were the inhabitance mentions in terms of sovereignty or territorial compensation.

Second, "When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.
​

Now this is kind of interesting. This is the order of events.

APR 1950: The West Bank is Annexed by Jordan.
JUN 1967: Israel occupies the West Bank; and it becomes Israel occupied territory of Jordan.
JUL 1988: King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. The sovereignty abandons the West Bank, and Israel now Effectively Occupies the Politically Abandon Territory.
NOV 1988: PLO Declares Independence of West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Capital in Jerusalem.
​

It will become interesting to see when the ICC (International Criminal Court) defines the critical point, that becomes the time in which the understanding of the conditions are set. Would that be the Treaty dates with Egypt (1979) for the Gaza Strip; and the Treaty dates with Jordan (1994) pertaining to the West Bank. Or would it be the end of the 1973 Yom Kipper War, --- or --- when?

And would there be an argument that today's Palestine Arab is capable of effectively understanding and articulating the agreements and interpretations of 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 years ago? Once the Provisional Government of Israel declared Independence and then had to defend that action against the Arab Coalition Army, was that a defining moment?

We simply don't know.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Rocco, you are not making any sense. Let's break this down with facts.

The Treaty of Sevres was never adopted because the Ottoman Empire disappeared and the Turkish Republic under the leadership of Ataturk was able to evict the Allied occupation forces defeat the Ottoman loyalists and defeated the invading Greeks in the west and the invading Armenians on the east who believed they would be able to divide Anatolian Turkey among themselves. It is called the War of Turkish Independence. Just as a note, had the Treaty of Sevres been adopted, Turkey would not be in Europe today, as all the Turkish land in Europe today would have been taken from the Ottomans.

Turkey ceded lands outside of the defined territory of Turkey via the Treaty of Lausanne adopted after the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed.

Hence, the only legal instrument that granted Britain control of Palestine was the Mandate and the Mandate did not imply sovereignty for Britain, but a holding in trust for the inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

So your claim that the Palestinians were not "mentioned" is false.

(REFERENCE)

I would recommend you listen to the UN International Law lecture by Prof Malcolm Shaw, Professor of International Law, University of Leicester. You will notice that even though the Treaty is no longer applicable, it is a precedence on the intent of the border issues and delineation, in cases of ambiguity and for clarity. He makes this plain. The Treaty of Sevres clearly stakes-out the final territory of Turkey; it would not have disappeared (that is pure supposition on someone's part).

Remember, the same Powers that wrote the Treaty of Sevres with the Ottoman Empire, also wrote the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey.

Article 3 points out Syria. AND Article 16 is the renunciation:

ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

(COMMENT)

The idea that Turkey did not transfer all rights and title to territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey, to the Allied Powers (and appropriate Associate Powers) is simply ridiculous. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne is much less restrictive over the concerned territory than the Treaty of Sevres. Although the Mudros Armistice with the Ottoman Empire was "unconditional" -- much more draconian.

Most Respectfully,
R

I got it all right Rocco. You can deflect all you want, but I have forgotten more than you will ever learn. Trust me.

Hahahaha you are too funny Monti. Great counter argument !

Why do you always boast that you are smarter than everyone ? You are quite possible one of the dumbest most uneducated posters here. You're the only poster who always makes claims that he is more intelligent then other posters. Yet when Rocco dismantles your propaganda, this is your response ?

You are a pathetic lying propagandist who cannot handle the truth. Go and get a high school diploma before you come back here and post.

 

[toastman]

^^^^^
Actually Rocco is a truly unbiased, informed and educated poster who simply posts facts. Which is why the MonkeyNazi resorted to insulting Rocco, just for posting the truth.

Yup, that's Monti. He cannot handle the truth. It kills him when people refute his garbage propaganda, so he resorts to insulting someone like Rocco who clearly knows more than he does.
Well, a brain dead pigeon is more educated than Monti is.

He is truly a pathetic loser.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

And prior to that half century they where in other Islamic nations as beggars and thieves. And nothing at all shows they where ever correct

 

[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.

(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.

Nothing stopping the Palestinians from calling for an election to have their own people as their leaders is there.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Which internationalborders can you provide a link to them other than the Mandate of Palestine borders you try and pass as nation of Palestine borders ?

Why when they elect representatives to do this for them

 

[Phoenall]

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

Indeed, there are two methods to acquire land: one by treaty and the other by fource.

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.​

And we see a lot of that from the Palestinians so that acquisition is illegitimate.

So what land that was deemed nation of Palestine has Israel gained by treaty or force. Bearing in mind that Palestine did not exist as a nation until 1988 and has not defined its borders by mutual agreement as promised last year in the UN

 

[Phoenall]

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.

You reinforce a host of negative stereotypes with the "I blame the Jooooooos and the Great Satan", for " Palestinian" Arab incompetence and ineptitude.

I don't. History does.

History is not the one posting "I blame the joooos and the great satan for Palestinian incompetence" is it.

BUT YOU DO ALL THE TIME

 

[Phoenall]

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.

That's so out of touch with reality -- you just have to deal with it yourself.. There is a FRACTURED govt to fix.
Neither the tyranny in Gaza or the remains of the PA in Ramallah is sufficient to move the Palestinian cause forward. It's only slightly worse than OUR two party situation here in the US where 48% of the electorate is perpetually pissed when they lose elections. At LEAST our Congress meets -- even if they do very little.. And we still have diplomats even they suck greatly. And we don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required.

There is a FRACTURED govt to fix.

And that is not going to happen as long as the regional superpower and the world superpower continue to pound on a defenseless civilian population.

That defenceless that they import Iranian weapons and fire illegal rockets at Israel and Egypt on a regular basis. There is the problem the Palestinians are just Iranian invaders by proxy that whine and whinge when Israel responds to the terrorism and ponds them into another cease fire. Time to let Israel finish the job and have the Palestinians beg for a ceasefire.

 

[Phoenall]

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

Indeed, there are two methods to acquire land: one by treaty and the other by fource.

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.​

And we see a lot of that from the Palestinians so that acquisition is illegitimate.

The various squatters who Yassir Got Money Arafat labeled as "Palestinians" are in no way original sovereign.

Indeed, Arafat was the appointed, money sucking, oligarch in Palestine. So is Abbas. He is rich too.

And what about hamas that creams of the top, bottom and middle. Just look at the goods going in to gaza every day and how little is actually handed out to the inhabitants. Hamas has the lorries unloaded into warehouses where they pick over the goods, any that can be used for weapons or to assist the terrorists are taken and never get to the people. All the building materials sent have been stolen by hamas to build tunnels with so they can target more Israeli children. Medical Supplies are taken and sold to provide money for weapons. So why haven't you mentioned the even more corruption present in hamas ?

 

[Phoenall]

Is there a unified Palestinian Nation PF? Are they farther from that concept then they were in 2005?
Don't blame Israel for dysfunction, division and lack of focus of the Palianists..
Until they agree on some better values than those in the Hamas Charter and "platform" -- nothing is gonna get better than it was in 2005...

There is a strong and growing Palestinian leadership. Most of them, however, do not live in Palestine.

Well they wont being Egyptian, Iranian, Jordanian, Pakistani and Saudi. And this is the problem with Palestine the self appointed leaders are not from Palestine and so have no kinship with the inhabitants. This all started when the arab league decided to become the Palestinian leaders in 1947, and promptly fragmented into 3 different camps. Is it any wonder that Palestine was split in two after 1949 with Egypt taking a small part and Jordan taking the rest

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, for heavens sake. And I even numbered them for you.

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

Indeed, there are two methods to acquire land: one by treaty and the other by fource.

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.​

And we see a lot of that from the Palestinians so that acquisition is illegitimate.

(COMMENT)

First, the Arab-Palestinians were NOT protecting or contesting sovereignty as an "original sovereign." They have not held any form of sovereignty for more than a eight centuries. So you would be incorrect there. The "original sovereign in this case would have been the Ottoman Empire, that surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers assumed control through the process of "Cession." Nowhere in the transfer were the Palestine people ever addressed. Nowhere in the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, or the Treaty of Lausanne, mention the inhabitance of the territory that was defined by the Allied Powers. Neither were the inhabitance mentions in terms of sovereignty or territorial compensation.

Second, "When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.
​

Now this is kind of interesting. This is the order of events.

APR 1950: The West Bank is Annexed by Jordan.
JUN 1967: Israel occupies the West Bank; and it becomes Israel occupied territory of Jordan.
JUL 1988: King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. The sovereignty abandons the West Bank, and Israel now Effectively Occupies the Politically Abandon Territory.
NOV 1988: PLO Declares Independence of West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Capital in Jerusalem.
​

It will become interesting to see when the ICC (International Criminal Court) defines the critical point, that becomes the time in which the understanding of the conditions are set. Would that be the Treaty dates with Egypt (1979) for the Gaza Strip; and the Treaty dates with Jordan (1994) pertaining to the West Bank. Or would it be the end of the 1973 Yom Kipper War, --- or --- when?

And would there be an argument that today's Palestine Arab is capable of effectively understanding and articulating the agreements and interpretations of 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 years ago? Once the Provisional Government of Israel declared Independence and then had to defend that action against the Arab Coalition Army, was that a defining moment?

We simply don't know.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Rocco, you are not making any sense. Let's break this down with facts.

The Treaty of Sevres was never adopted because the Ottoman Empire disappeared and the Turkish Republic under the leadership of Ataturk was able to evict the Allied occupation forces defeat the Ottoman loyalists and defeated the invading Greeks in the west and the invading Armenians on the east who believed they would be able to divide Anatolian Turkey among themselves. It is called the War of Turkish Independence. Just as a note, had the Treaty of Sevres been adopted, Turkey would not be in Europe today, as all the Turkish land in Europe today would have been taken from the Ottomans.

Turkey ceded lands outside of the defined territory of Turkey via the Treaty of Lausanne adopted after the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed.

Hence, the only legal instrument that granted Britain control of Palestine was the Mandate and the Mandate did not imply sovereignty for Britain, but a holding in trust for the inhabitants, i.e. the Palestinians.

So your claim that the Palestinians were not "mentioned" is false.

Wrong again freddy boy as it was embodied in the Treaty of Lausanne making it valid, This included handing sovereignty of Ottoman lands to the LoN ( not Britain ) under the treaty of Lausanne.

STOP RE-WRITTING HISTORY TO SUIT YOUR ISLAMOCATHOLIC NAZI PROPAGANDA

 

[Phoenall]

^^^^^
Actually Rocco is a truly unbiased, informed and educated poster who simply posts facts. Which is why the MonkeyNazi resorted to insulting Rocco, just for posting the truth.

Yup, that's Monti. He cannot handle the truth. It kills him when people refute his garbage propaganda, so he resorts to insulting someone like Rocco who clearly knows more than he does.
Well, a brain dead pigeon is more educated than Monti is.

He is truly a pathetic loser.

Be careful people or he will put you on ignore so he cant see when you destroy his arguments and show him up as the complete and utter moron he really is.

 

[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.

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"..

So when offering 5 and 10 year truces to the Zionists so they could "reconstruct their own political representation and process" was refused by the Zionists, when the the results of freest, most heavily monitored elections were disregarded by the U.S. and Zionist Israel in favour of a "more favourable" losing faction, what do you expect the Palestinian people to do? They have organisation and consensus, a viable working government infrastructure, as good as any in the West. Surround New York with razor wire fences and watchtowers, control everything and everyone that moves in or out, then when New Yorkers take a few pot shots over the fence use the USAF to carpet bomb Long Island; then repeat the process for 10 years and see how long the organisation, consensus and a viable working government infrastructure survives.

 

[Challenger]

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.

That's so out of touch with reality -- you just have to deal with it yourself.. There is a FRACTURED govt to fix.
Neither the tyranny in Gaza or the remains of the PA in Ramallah is sufficient to move the Palestinian cause forward. It's only slightly worse than OUR two party situation here in the US where 48% of the electorate is perpetually pissed when they lose elections. At LEAST our Congress meets -- even if they do very little.. And we still have diplomats even they suck greatly. And we don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required.

Your Congress meets because there are no checkpoints in Washington DC, Congressmen don't have to worry about being killed by drone strikes or smart bombs. And Americans don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required, true. In Palestine that's what the Zionist Israelis do, kill the winners so their lapdogs remain in power. That's the reality of Occupied Palestine.

 

[Kondor3]

...That's the reality of Occupied Palestine.

Sounds like those last remaining Arab squatters on Israeli land would be better off packing up and moving someplace more safe for them.

 

[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.

(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"..

So when offering 5 and 10 year truces to the Zionists so they could "reconstruct their own political representation and process" was refused by the Zionists, when the the results of freest, most heavily monitored elections were disregarded by the U.S. and Zionist Israel in favour of a "more favourable" losing faction, what do you expect the Palestinian people to do? They have organisation and consensus, a viable working government infrastructure, as good as any in the West. Surround New York with razor wire fences and watchtowers, control everything and everyone that moves in or out, then when New Yorkers take a few pot shots over the fence use the USAF to carpet bomb Long Island; then repeat the process for 10 years and see how long the organisation, consensus and a viable working government infrastructure survives.

A little bit disingenuous with the truth as the terms of the 5 year truce where mostly hamas keeping the right to end the truce at a time they thought they would be strong enough to destroy Israel.

Still waiting for the evidence of your claims from a non partisan source, and you either ignore the requests or give partisan sources

Are you blind or just completely brainwashed the Palestinians only had a viable working government when Egypt and Jordan controlled them, and even then they attacked their leadership. It is not pot shots either it is all out war with illegal weapons to provoke an armed response so the Palestinians can play the martyr card

 

[Phoenall]

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.

That's so out of touch with reality -- you just have to deal with it yourself.. There is a FRACTURED govt to fix.
Neither the tyranny in Gaza or the remains of the PA in Ramallah is sufficient to move the Palestinian cause forward. It's only slightly worse than OUR two party situation here in the US where 48% of the electorate is perpetually pissed when they lose elections. At LEAST our Congress meets -- even if they do very little.. And we still have diplomats even they suck greatly. And we don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required.

Your Congress meets because there are no checkpoints in Washington DC, Congressmen don't have to worry about being killed by drone strikes or smart bombs. And Americans don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required, true. In Palestine that's what the Zionist Israelis do, kill the winners so their lapdogs remain in power. That's the reality of Occupied Palestine.

No checkpoints in Beirut, Cairo or the other nations where the P.A. members live. And if they can meet in Gaza then they can meet anywhere else

I think you will find that hamas and fatah did most of the killings, and still do

Once again you use Zionist out of context and in a racially motivated manner

 

[Roudy]

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.

That's so out of touch with reality -- you just have to deal with it yourself.. There is a FRACTURED govt to fix.
Neither the tyranny in Gaza or the remains of the PA in Ramallah is sufficient to move the Palestinian cause forward. It's only slightly worse than OUR two party situation here in the US where 48% of the electorate is perpetually pissed when they lose elections. At LEAST our Congress meets -- even if they do very little.. And we still have diplomats even they suck greatly. And we don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required.

Your Congress meets because there are no checkpoints in Washington DC, Congressmen don't have to worry about being killed by drone strikes or smart bombs. And Americans don't generally try to kill the losing party so that no more elections are required, true. In Palestine that's what the Zionist Israelis do, kill the winners so their lapdogs remain in power. That's the reality of Occupied Palestine.

No checkpoints in Gaza, dufus.

 

[Challenger]

...That's the reality of Occupied Palestine.

Sounds like those last remaining Arab squatters on Israeli land would be better off packing up and moving someplace more safe for them.

I'm sure that would make the Zionist colonisers very happy; the native people being marched off onto "reservations" or becoming a new Diaspora. Problem is, it's not Israeli land and never has been, it's not even exclusively Jewish land and never has been; and the only squatters there are the European Zionist colonists and settlers.