Mindful, et al,
The Many Faces of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP).
Mindful, don't think for a moment that pro-Palestinians or the HoAP even have a post-conflict plan. They don't.
SOURCE:
Same Algemiener Article: Well, we saw those bloody hands. We won’t forget them. And no matter how many names the State Department or Peace Now call the prime minister, we understand what the Palestinians are trying to do when they try to murder someone for the “crime” of being Jewish.
Algemiener: said:
Stephen M. Flatow, an attorney in New Jersey, is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in Kfar Darom in 1995.
Granted, the two women were wearing Israeli army uniforms. But so what? The US State Department and J Street are always telling us that the average Palestinian is moderate and wants to live in peace with Israelis. Why should the mere sight of an IDF uniform on a young woman fill them with murderous rage?
The two young women weren’t on patrol or brandishing their weapons. They weren’t a brigade of combat soldiers in full gear. They were obviously just two young women driving by. Any rational person would have understood that they innocently took a wrong turn. The Palestinians’ response, however, was anything but rational: a mob immediately surrounded the car and tried to stone the women to death.
When a Palestinian ‘Ethnic-Cleansing’ Mob Attacks Two Jewish Women
(COMMENT)
One of the repetitive mantra's you hear quire frequently from the HoAP is that peace will come when the Occupation ends; although you seldom hear of the Negotiation Affairs Department, HAMAS --- or any donor supported Palestinian activity, say that. And this is a problem in itself, even if it was an official Palestinian Policy.
EXCERPT: Article 6 said:
IOccupation shall cease one year after the general close of military operations.
EXCERPTSArticle 42 and Article 43 said:
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
While separate and independent concepts, (in thumbnail form) these three converge to make even a larger aspect come to light. Even the ICRC Expert Panel came to understand that the "Evaluating the End of Occupation
(is) A Thorny Task." Again in the simplest of forms:
Expert Meeting: Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory said:
Occupation was initially perceived as being a matter of inter-State relationships. Based on the premise that occupation was a temporary situation neither causing nor implying any devolution of sovereignty, occupation law, as reflected in the Hague Regulations of 1907, was geared mainly towards preserving the interests of the occupied State and its institutions. It also presumed a state of peaceful coexistence between the occupant and the local population and insisted on the former involving itself as little as possible in managing the lives of those temporarily under its rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, a Security Council resolution has to respect the integrity of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations – interpreted as a
jus cogens norm
per se – and
cannot declare an occupation to have ended if the conditions set out in that norm have not yet been met.
Occupation and Administration of the Territory Occupied in 1967 as, without any other support, considered the State of Palestine is not merely an enigma
(that has given rise to much speculation) but somewhat of a dilemma.
• The factual "End of Occupation" cannot be declared:
§ Until the Israelis Withdraw; wherein the territory is actually removed from under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
• The withdrawal is dependent on:
§ The establishment of such conditions as to introduce the same safety and security to the territorial integrity of Israel after the withdrawal as that which existed before the withdrawal.
§ Termination of hostile activity, such that public order and safety is restored.
§ HoAP have ceased general military operations for one year.
§ HoAP negotiations shall open and cover the remaining issues under the Permanent Status of Negotiation, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.
§ That the HoAP terminate the Jihad and armed struggle against Israel and all such insurgency activity intended to inflict injury on Israel.
To date, the West Bank and Gaza Strip have no single voice and authority to negotiate such conditions.
• There is no central authority that can call and effective end to HoAP operations against Israel.
• There is no central authority that can enter into an agreement that mutually benefits the territorial integrity or political independence of the two governments, the protection of its population, and the protection of its sovereignty.
• There is no central authority that can enter into an agreement such that the issue of mutual interest are formally resolve:
§ Compensation, War Reparations, Claims for Restitution.
§ Agree upon some equitable solution such that the Palestinian Right of Return ceases to be an issue.
§ Come to an agreement over Jerusalem.
§ Establish a firm agreement to adhere to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation.
§ Settle border disputes.
§ And agree to use negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice to overcome future disputes, etc.
There is no guarantee that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank will ever be as free a democratic Republic as Israel, or that these territories will ever be reasonably free of oppression resulting from Islamic radicalism, religious extremism or other such viruses that spread across that region of the world. There is no agreement that will guarantee the human and economic development that Israel maintains
(in that no member of the Arab League has reached that point).
There is no guarantee that once a withdrawal of the IDF occurs
(to the extent agreed upon), that the West Bank and Gaza Strip will not fall in the the same disarray and effectively become a failed state.
No signal influence Arab or otherwise, domestic or external can even guarantee that an agreement is even realistic possible under the current political conditions and the 20th Century anchor to which HoAP negotiating is tethered. Absent a 21st Century Palestine Leadership, nothing can be considered even possible under the present conditions. No one on the HoAP side will ever envision a West Bank and Gaza Strip linkage of a tariff-free, customs and duty exempt, major four lane highway or high speed rail connecting Palestine to all the major cities in the immediate region. They are occupied with visions of an ever expanding conflict to achieve some goal or right they perceived they were owed from a century ago.
Most Respectfully,
R
