The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that HAMAS is a recognized terrorist organization.
Remembering that HAMAS provides safe haven and material support to other terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Remembering that HAMAS, as a government entity, exercises both the threat and use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, as recognized by General Assembly Resolution 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations --- in a manner inconsistent with Chapter I, Article 2(4), United Nations.

Smuggling is bringing something into a country illegally.

What law are they violating?

(COMMENT)

The basic law is in the form of a Treaty.

ARMS TRADE TREATY
Article 6
Prohibitions
Opened for signature in New York: 3 June 2013
Entry into force: 24 December 2014

1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its obligations under measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

3. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party.
​

HAMAS, and the Palestinian State in general, has: S/RES/1373 (2001)

FAILED TO refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

FAILED TO deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remembering that HAMAS is a recognized terrorist organization.
Remembering that HAMAS provides safe haven and material support to other terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Remembering that HAMAS, as a government entity, exercises both the threat and use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, as recognized by General Assembly Resolution 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations --- in a manner inconsistent with Chapter I, Article 2(4), United Nations.

Smuggling is bringing something into a country illegally.

What law are they violating?

(COMMENT)

The basic law is in the form of a Treaty.

ARMS TRADE TREATY
Article 6
Prohibitions
Opened for signature in New York: 3 June 2013
Entry into force: 24 December 2014

1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its obligations under measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

3. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party.
​

HAMAS, and the Palestinian State in general, has: S/RES/1373 (2001)

FAILED TO refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

FAILED TO deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
​

Most Respectfully,
R

So, under domestic and international law the US cannot supply arms to Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW! Where did that come from?

So, under domestic and international law the US cannot supply arms to Israel.

(COMMENT)

You are just trying to bait me.

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW! Where did that come from?

So, under domestic and international law the US cannot supply arms to Israel.

(COMMENT)

You are just trying to bait me.

v/r
R

It is not where did that come from. It is where have you been?

People have been talking about that for years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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.​

You are the one who is incorrect. The people are sovereign. A state is not required.

Being the native population and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine the Palestinians have certain inalienable rights.

An independent state is the product of the exercise of their rights not a prerequisite.

 

[flacaltenn]

Keep Calm and Seek the Truth Challenger.. Turns out your Husni al Za'im was a left-over Ottoman military officer that led a bloodless coupe of Syria. Shortly thereafter --- he was deposed and executed. That's the problem with making deals with so-called Palestinian leadership. They tend to lead dangerous and short lives for the most part.

That agreement would have worth maybe a falafel sandwich without the drink... This guy was "president" for literally 7 months before his neck was stretched out. And more than likely was CIA backed.

I'm calm, always have been. Husni-al-Za'im was the President of Syria when he made the offer. The success of his coup was dependant on making a just peace with the Zionist state, when his attempt failed, his days were numbered, just like Sadat when he made peace after the 1973 war. Didn't make the offer any less genuine. Ben Gurion hung him out to dry. The Zionists have never wanted peace and don't want it now. "Greater Israel" is the goal, from the Euphrates to the sea.

So your position is --- It's ISRAEL's fault that this guy only lasted 7 months???
That you would believe his seizure of power was ruined by only by his failure to cuddle up to
"the Zionist Entity".. This is entertaining.. For sure..

Ben Gurion could have been as reality challenged as our John Fraud Kerry and STILL realized that this guy was a "dead man walking" and NOT an opportunity for peace.

Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? Nobody knew then how long he'd last. My position is that "peace loving" Zionist Israel never made the effort. What could they have lost if the deal went south? They were at war with their neighbours already, so nothing lost there if it did. If, however, the deal held they'd have a stable northern border, a split amongst their enemies and no Palestinian refugee problem to worry about in the future. The prospect would be worth exploring to any politician who really desired to live in peace with his neighbours; unfortunately Ben Gurion and Zionist Israel had no intention of making peace, then or since.

Lot of if's, there Mouseman.. You could GUARANTEE there would be no Palestinian Zionist movement today if only this clown had made that deal.. ??? Grant you -- it's an interesting historical oddity.. But so was that coupe and this guy who left office in a casket...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have two responses.

It is not where did that come from. It is where have you been?

People have been talking about that for years.

(COMMENT)

The US is not violating any treaty or law (international or domestic) in regards to providing military assistance to Israel.

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.

US ‘to boost’ military aid to Israel after Iran nuclear deal

The US has offered to increase military aid to Israel by another $1.5 billion per year to ease tensions over the nuclear deal with Iran, media has reported. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to make the offer …
RT · 15 minutes ago


White House reportedly offers to boost military aid to Israel after Iran deal

President Obama has offered to increase U.S. military aid to Israel in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement, according to a published report. According to the New York Times, Obama broached the subject in a phone …
FOX News · 1 day ago


US offers generous military aid package to Israel, yet Iran deal leaves ally uneasy

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis & Matthew Rosenberg WASHINGTON: When President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday to discuss the nuclear deal with Iran, the US president offered the …
Economic Times · 1 day ago
​

The purpose of the aid is to make sure that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has a significant Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over any coalition of opposing forces in the region that have demonstrated in the past the propensity to launch coordinated attacks against Israel. The US is attempting to insure that the IDF becomes one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world and a credible military force in the region. That is the foreign policy objective in a nutshell.

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.​

You are the one who is incorrect. The people are sovereign. A state is not required.

Being the native population and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine the Palestinians have certain inalienable rights.

An independent state is the product of the exercise of their rights not a prerequisite.

(COMMENT)

No, you have that wrong, almost completely wrong.

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.

NOTE: The idea that people are sovereign, or is much the different thing that comes in two flavors. First: What Exactly is a Sovereign Individual? That is phrase philosophically discussed by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson. Secondly the phrase is sometimes used in the context that "Sovereign citizen is a legal term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power."​

Relative to 1995 discussion by the High Commissioner on Human Rights (E/CN.4/RES/1995/4 17 February 1995) , where the UNHCR --- "Recalling General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other resolutions which confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination without external interference and to the establishment of their independent State on their national soil, especially Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982." --- One has to understand that the "right" confers absolutely nothing to the Arab Palestinian except the opportunity to attempt to achieve self-determination. You will notice that in the explanation, that A/RES/181 (II) is cited. Yes the right to establish a independent state is not the guarantee that you will have a independent state. In this case the Westphalian Sovereignty Model stipulates, no matter how powerful, they do not have the right to take upon the rule of a sovereign country. However, the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine Applied was NOT sovereign or self-governing. Does that prevent the inhabitance the right to try to exercise the right of self-determination? NO!!! But the rights of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination only mean something if the inhabitance: Through the of self-determination establish a sovereignty over a specified territory. Until 1988, the Arab Palestinian may have, in their eyes, attempted to do this; but it was not achieved until the PLO declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have two responses.

It is not where did that come from. It is where have you been?

People have been talking about that for years.

(COMMENT)

The US is not violating any treaty or law (international or domestic) in regards to providing military assistance to Israel.

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.

US ‘to boost’ military aid to Israel after Iran nuclear deal
View attachment 44779
The US has offered to increase military aid to Israel by another $1.5 billion per year to ease tensions over the nuclear deal with Iran, media has reported. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to make the offer …
RT · 15 minutes ago


White House reportedly offers to boost military aid to Israel after Iran deal
View attachment 44780
President Obama has offered to increase U.S. military aid to Israel in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement, according to a published report. According to the New York Times, Obama broached the subject in a phone …
FOX News · 1 day ago


US offers generous military aid package to Israel, yet Iran deal leaves ally uneasy
View attachment 44781
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis & Matthew Rosenberg WASHINGTON: When President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday to discuss the nuclear deal with Iran, the US president offered the …
Economic Times · 1 day ago
​

The purpose of the aid is to make sure that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has a significant Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over any coalition of opposing forces in the region that have demonstrated in the past the propensity to launch coordinated attacks against Israel. The US is attempting to insure that the IDF becomes one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world and a credible military force in the region. That is the foreign policy objective in a nutshell.

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.​

You are the one who is incorrect. The people are sovereign. A state is not required.

Being the native population and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine the Palestinians have certain inalienable rights.

An independent state is the product of the exercise of their rights not a prerequisite.

(COMMENT)

No, you have that wrong, almost completely wrong.

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.

NOTE: The idea that people are sovereign, or is much the different thing that comes in two flavors. First: What Exactly is a Sovereign Individual? That is phrase philosophically discussed by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson. Secondly the phrase is sometimes used in the context that "Sovereign citizen is a legal term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power."​

Relative to 1995 discussion by the High Commissioner on Human Rights (E/CN.4/RES/1995/4 17 February 1995) , where the UNHCR --- "Recalling General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other resolutions which confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination without external interference and to the establishment of their independent State on their national soil, especially Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982." --- One has to understand that the "right" confers absolutely nothing to the Arab Palestinian except the opportunity to attempt to achieve self-determination. You will notice that in the explanation, that A/RES/181 (II) is cited. Yes the right to establish a independent state is not the guarantee that you will have a independent state. In this case the Westphalian Sovereignty Model stipulates, no matter how powerful, they do not have the right to take upon the rule of a sovereign country. However, the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine Applied was NOT sovereign or self-governing. Does that prevent the inhabitance the right to try to exercise the right of self-determination? NO!!! But the rights of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination only mean something if the inhabitance: Through the of self-determination establish a sovereignty over a specified territory. Until 1988, the Arab Palestinian may have, in their eyes, attempted to do this; but it was not achieved until the PLO declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.​

Of course they have no concern. They don't think down that road because it would go against what they want. They have no concern for law so they don't bother to look.

Allow me to share one of my experiences.

I called the state department and asked them why they were negotiating with the illegal government in Palestine not the elected government. The guy said hold on let me get that. I sat on hold for 15-20 minutes. He finally comes back and says "Can I call you back? We can't find Palestine."

That speaks volumes. That is the intellectual level of the people in our government.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have two responses.

It is not where did that come from. It is where have you been?

People have been talking about that for years.

(COMMENT)

The US is not violating any treaty or law (international or domestic) in regards to providing military assistance to Israel.

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.

US ‘to boost’ military aid to Israel after Iran nuclear deal
View attachment 44779
The US has offered to increase military aid to Israel by another $1.5 billion per year to ease tensions over the nuclear deal with Iran, media has reported. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to make the offer …
RT · 15 minutes ago


White House reportedly offers to boost military aid to Israel after Iran deal
View attachment 44780
President Obama has offered to increase U.S. military aid to Israel in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement, according to a published report. According to the New York Times, Obama broached the subject in a phone …
FOX News · 1 day ago


US offers generous military aid package to Israel, yet Iran deal leaves ally uneasy
View attachment 44781
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis & Matthew Rosenberg WASHINGTON: When President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday to discuss the nuclear deal with Iran, the US president offered the …
Economic Times · 1 day ago
​

The purpose of the aid is to make sure that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has a significant Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over any coalition of opposing forces in the region that have demonstrated in the past the propensity to launch coordinated attacks against Israel. The US is attempting to insure that the IDF becomes one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world and a credible military force in the region. That is the foreign policy objective in a nutshell.

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.​

You are the one who is incorrect. The people are sovereign. A state is not required.

Being the native population and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine the Palestinians have certain inalienable rights.

An independent state is the product of the exercise of their rights not a prerequisite.

(COMMENT)

No, you have that wrong, almost completely wrong.

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.

NOTE: The idea that people are sovereign, or is much the different thing that comes in two flavors. First: What Exactly is a Sovereign Individual? That is phrase philosophically discussed by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson. Secondly the phrase is sometimes used in the context that "Sovereign citizen is a legal term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power."​

Relative to 1995 discussion by the High Commissioner on Human Rights (E/CN.4/RES/1995/4 17 February 1995) , where the UNHCR --- "Recalling General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other resolutions which confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination without external interference and to the establishment of their independent State on their national soil, especially Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982." --- One has to understand that the "right" confers absolutely nothing to the Arab Palestinian except the opportunity to attempt to achieve self-determination. You will notice that in the explanation, that A/RES/181 (II) is cited. Yes the right to establish a independent state is not the guarantee that you will have a independent state. In this case the Westphalian Sovereignty Model stipulates, no matter how powerful, they do not have the right to take upon the rule of a sovereign country. However, the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine Applied was NOT sovereign or self-governing. Does that prevent the inhabitance the right to try to exercise the right of self-determination? NO!!! But the rights of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination only mean something if the inhabitance: Through the of self-determination establish a sovereignty over a specified territory. Until 1988, the Arab Palestinian may have, in their eyes, attempted to do this; but it was not achieved until the PLO declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.​

Popular sovereignty is the basis of international law.

Popular sovereignty​

or the sovereignty of the people is the principle that the authority of the government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power.

The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

External political-military force contrasts this principle because it is imposed on the people without their consent.

Israel was a foreign government imposed in Palestine by force without the consent of the people.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have two responses.

It is not where did that come from. It is where have you been?

People have been talking about that for years.

(COMMENT)

The US is not violating any treaty or law (international or domestic) in regards to providing military assistance to Israel.

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.

US ‘to boost’ military aid to Israel after Iran nuclear deal
View attachment 44779
The US has offered to increase military aid to Israel by another $1.5 billion per year to ease tensions over the nuclear deal with Iran, media has reported. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to make the offer …
RT · 15 minutes ago


White House reportedly offers to boost military aid to Israel after Iran deal
View attachment 44780
President Obama has offered to increase U.S. military aid to Israel in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement, according to a published report. According to the New York Times, Obama broached the subject in a phone …
FOX News · 1 day ago


US offers generous military aid package to Israel, yet Iran deal leaves ally uneasy
View attachment 44781
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis & Matthew Rosenberg WASHINGTON: When President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday to discuss the nuclear deal with Iran, the US president offered the …
Economic Times · 1 day ago
​

The purpose of the aid is to make sure that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has a significant Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over any coalition of opposing forces in the region that have demonstrated in the past the propensity to launch coordinated attacks against Israel. The US is attempting to insure that the IDF becomes one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world and a credible military force in the region. That is the foreign policy objective in a nutshell.

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.​

You are the one who is incorrect. The people are sovereign. A state is not required.

Being the native population and citizens of the defined territory of Palestine the Palestinians have certain inalienable rights.

An independent state is the product of the exercise of their rights not a prerequisite.

(COMMENT)

No, you have that wrong, almost completely wrong.

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.

NOTE: The idea that people are sovereign, or is much the different thing that comes in two flavors. First: What Exactly is a Sovereign Individual? That is phrase philosophically discussed by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson. Secondly the phrase is sometimes used in the context that "Sovereign citizen is a legal term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power."​

Relative to 1995 discussion by the High Commissioner on Human Rights (E/CN.4/RES/1995/4 17 February 1995) , where the UNHCR --- "Recalling General Assembly resolutions 181 A and B (II) of 29 November 1947 and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, as well as all other resolutions which confirm and define the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination without external interference and to the establishment of their independent State on their national soil, especially Assembly resolutions ES-7/2 of 29 July 1980 and 37/86 E of 20 December 1982." --- One has to understand that the "right" confers absolutely nothing to the Arab Palestinian except the opportunity to attempt to achieve self-determination. You will notice that in the explanation, that A/RES/181 (II) is cited. Yes the right to establish a independent state is not the guarantee that you will have a independent state. In this case the Westphalian Sovereignty Model stipulates, no matter how powerful, they do not have the right to take upon the rule of a sovereign country. However, the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine Applied was NOT sovereign or self-governing. Does that prevent the inhabitance the right to try to exercise the right of self-determination? NO!!! But the rights of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination only mean something if the inhabitance: Through the of self-determination establish a sovereignty over a specified territory. Until 1988, the Arab Palestinian may have, in their eyes, attempted to do this; but it was not achieved until the PLO declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

What prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state for the local inhabitants as happened with the other former Ottoman territories was the facilitation of the transfer of Europeans to the territory, or rather, the Mandatory did not adhere to the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 which states in part:

"....there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

By allowing the transfer of large numbers of Europeans to Palestine contravened this and other articles of the Covenant with respect to 95% of the population of Palestine from the date of the signing of the Mandate.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are a couple things here that confuses me.

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.​

Of course they have no concern. They don't think down that road because it would go against what they want. They have no concern for law so they don't bother to look.

Allow me to share one of my experiences.

I called the state department and asked them why they were negotiating with the illegal government in Palestine not the elected government. The guy said hold on let me get that. I sat on hold for 15-20 minutes. He finally comes back and says "Can I call you back? We can't find Palestine."

That speaks volumes. That is the intellectual level of the people in our government.

(COMMENT)

While I am not all that impressed with the KSA's of career Foreign Service Officers, by no stretch of the imagination are they so inept that they would not know that the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) deals with American Foreign Policy and diplomatic relations with that general regional area (including but not limited to: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, and Syria).

Since 10/8/1997, HAMAS has been a "designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)."

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Your question is:

√ "Why they were negotiating with the illegal government in Palestine not the elected government?"​

Under US Federal Law, it is extremely difficult to open diplomatic relations with a terrorist organization. Whether or not that you recognize it, HAMAS is a designated FTO. And, whether you want to recognize it, the General Assembly (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) gives recognition in a certain way. Similarly, the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974, make an important observation.

The Arab League decided that the --- "Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."​

the UN --- "Decides​

to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice."​

My only guess that I have as to why the Department of State could not answer your question is that you must have reach the Janitor.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there are a couple things here that confuses me.

In fact, there really is no serious discussion in Washington about the restricting aid to Israel. In fact it is much the opposite. In fact, my most recent copy of the U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel --- Congressional Research Service Report (RL33222) dated June 10, 2015, does not even mention the concern.​

Of course they have no concern. They don't think down that road because it would go against what they want. They have no concern for law so they don't bother to look.

Allow me to share one of my experiences.

I called the state department and asked them why they were negotiating with the illegal government in Palestine not the elected government. The guy said hold on let me get that. I sat on hold for 15-20 minutes. He finally comes back and says "Can I call you back? We can't find Palestine."

That speaks volumes. That is the intellectual level of the people in our government.

(COMMENT)

While I am not all that impressed with the KSA's of career Foreign Service Officers, by no stretch of the imagination are they so inept that they would not know that the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) deals with American Foreign Policy and diplomatic relations with that general regional area (including but not limited to: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, and Syria).

Since 10/8/1997, HAMAS has been a "designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)."

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Your question is:

√ "Why they were negotiating with the illegal government in Palestine not the elected government?"​

Under US Federal Law, it is extremely difficult to open diplomatic relations with a terrorist organization. Whether or not that you recognize it, HAMAS is a designated FTO. And, whether you want to recognize it, the General Assembly (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) gives recognition in a certain way. Similarly, the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974, make an important observation.

The Arab League decided that the --- "Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated."​

the UN --- "Decides
to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice."​

My only guess that I have as to why the Department of State could not answer your question is that you must have reach the Janitor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under US Federal Law, it is extremely difficult to open diplomatic relations with a terrorist organization.​

Indeed, they tie their own hands with their stupid political name calling crap.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In your Posting which I responded to, you spoke of: "The people are sovereign. A state is not required." That is much different from "Popular Sovereignty." I responded to your post and not something you just raised.

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.​

Popular sovereignty is the basis of international law.

Popular sovereignty
or the sovereignty of the people is the principle that the authority of the government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power.

The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

External political-military force contrasts this principle because it is imposed on the people without their consent.

Israel was a foreign government imposed in Palestine by force without the consent of the people.

(COMMENT)

Popular Sovereignty only make a difference if the government is representative of the people; there are several possible forms.

A country like Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation as well. But in that sovereignty, the "sovereign authority" does not rest with the people as in a representative government; but in the hands of the King.

Israel, emerged from a combination of factors. Israel was not imposed by force, but through the process of self-determination as crafted through the "Step Preparatory to Independence" contained in GA/RES/181 (II). External Force was exerted by the Arab League Coalition of several Armies simultaneously attacking which attempted to supplant the Jewish right of self-determination and undermine the recommendations of the General Assembly. It was only after the declaration of independence, when Israel had to defend itself from the influence of external military force exerted by the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Under US Federal Law, it is extremely difficult to open diplomatic relations with a terrorist organization.​

Indeed, they tie their own hands with their stupid political name calling crap.

I consider the Likud Party a terrorist organization.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, they are not the elected government by a flux (4-30% depending on district of popular vote), fatah had the majority votes, they have elected representatives in parliament. They illegally took control of gaza. They don't represent the WB in their political or militarily ambitions. There has not been an election since 2006, because hamas will not permit one to take place.

Hamas does not represent the palestinians, it controls gaza by force.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell that lie, it's not going to come true.

 

[Billo_Really]

The bottom line is, Israel has no right to stop a ship in international waters. Any ship, for any reason.

 

[Hollie]

The bottom line is, Israel has no right to stop a ship in international waters. Any ship, for any reason.

It's so cute when you chest-heaving short boys pretend to be internet tough guys.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's so cute when you chest-heaving short boys pretend to be internet tough guys.

I never thought quoting international law was macho, but hey, whatever hydrates your sugar walls...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In your Posting which I responded to, you spoke of: "The people are sovereign. A state is not required." That is much different from "Popular Sovereignty." I responded to your post and not something you just raised.

Sovereignty, in the political sense, that we talk about here, in the study and theory of law as applied politically, is the right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any external political-military force brought to bear on the self-determination. It is the "Westphalian Sovereignty" that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, in which the model excludes the unwanted manipulation by foreign powers.​

Popular sovereignty is the basis of international law.

Popular sovereignty
or the sovereignty of the people is the principle that the authority of the government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power.

The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

External political-military force contrasts this principle because it is imposed on the people without their consent.

Israel was a foreign government imposed in Palestine by force without the consent of the people.

(COMMENT)

Popular Sovereignty only make a difference if the government is representative of the people; there are several possible forms.

A country like Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation as well. But in that sovereignty, the "sovereign authority" does not rest with the people as in a representative government; but in the hands of the King.

Israel, emerged from a combination of factors. Israel was not imposed by force, but through the process of self-determination as crafted through the "Step Preparatory to Independence" contained in GA/RES/181 (II). External Force was exerted by the Arab League Coalition of several Armies simultaneously attacking which attempted to supplant the Jewish right of self-determination and undermine the recommendations of the General Assembly. It was only after the declaration of independence, when Israel had to defend itself from the influence of external military force exerted by the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

The people are sovereign even in non self governing territories.

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty since their separation from Turkish rule. They were a non self governing territory under trust of the Mandate.

 

[toastman]

Under US Federal Law, it is extremely difficult to open diplomatic relations with a terrorist organization.​

Indeed, they tie their own hands with their stupid political name calling crap.

I consider the Likud Party a terrorist organization.

Who cares what you consider? You have no credibility on this subject.