Who are the Israelis?

[RoccoR]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ Mindful, et al,

BLUF: I've been to Scandinavia, and I did not get the impression that they liked Americans either.

Norwegian state radio host: “I wish the vaccine didn’t work in Israel, Israel is a shitty country”
Antisemitic, Israel-hating rant on Norwegian state controlled radio.\

Shaun Henrik Matheson is a radio host at NRK P13, a digital music channel run the Norwegian state broadcaster NRK. Tuesday 2 February he served the following antisemitic, Israel-hating rant to his listeners [see Spanish translation below]:

“Jeez, well, we had better mention the good news, even if they come from Israel (laughs). I know, how sick is this? Good news from Israel, when did that happen last time? Do you know what, I don’t know actually. But we have read about this all day today and heard it just now on the radio news.

(COMMENT)

One thing you have to say about the people of The Three Kingdom (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) they are quite intelligent. The Scandinavians are, for the most part, pro-Arab Palestinians and generally support Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in their bid to further Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence against the Israelis. Shaun Matheson (NRK P13) said, "Israel is an occupying power" → and by saying so, his position (and the position of many Scandinavians) on Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) becomes garbled in translation. Shaun Matheson knows quite well that the HoAP may be prosecuted for acts committed solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, no matter what the Norwegian Government endorses. Shaun Matheson knows quite well that Israel is not an "apartheid state" (oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group).

Having said that, they are still a people that we should listen to, even if we do not agree. They are at the very top of the Human Development Scale.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

”I was inspired by the Palestinian intifada,” Hady Amr wrote a year after September 11, discussing his work as the national coordinator of the anti-Israel Middle East Justice Network.

Biden has now chosen Amr as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-Palestine.
"I have news for every Israeli," Amr ranted in one column written after Sheikh Salah Shahada, the head of Hamas' Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was taken out by an Israeli air strike.
Amr warned that Arabs "now have televisions, and they will never, never forget what the Israeli people, the Israeli military and Israeli democracy have done to Palestinian children. And there will be thousands who will seek to avenge these brutal murders of innocents."
He also threatened Americans that "we too shouldn't be shocked when our military assistance to Israel and our security council vetoes that keep on protecting Israel come back to haunt us"

The future State Department official was making these threats less than a year after 9/11.

Biden’s New Asst Sec of State Worked for Islamic Terror State That Funds Hamas | Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic

www.frontpagemag.com

 

[Mindful]

Joe Biden is loading the State Department with officials who loathe Israel. Yesterday, I wrote about one of them, Hady Amr, the Hamas-supporting new Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-Palestine. I wrote about another, Robert Malley, the new envoy to Iran and longtime foe of Israel, here.

Anti-Israeli staffers keep joining the Biden administration

Joe Biden is loading the State Department with officials who loathe Israel. Yesterday, I wrote about one of them, Hady Amr, the Hamas-supporting new Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-P…

www.powerlineblog.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

3rd times the charm?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: JERUSALEM
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I'm confused! Who has civil and security control over that particular village?

(CURIOUS MINDS WANT TO KNOW)

What has changed with respect to: "Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred?"

I thought, and I could be wrong, that The Palestinian side has the right to make any and all alterations to the Local Government boundaries in the West Bank, within areas A and B as defined in the Oslo Accord; NOT AREA C.

When did Israel transfer the Powers and Responsibilities for the administration of the territory (any portion) from the Military Government and its Civil Administration to the Palestinian Side (other than Area A)?

I thought that since 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that Israel assumed all functional jurisdiction in Area C, less that of Areas A and B that were later transferred; in place of any absentee government (not Jordanian and not Arab Palestinian).

When did the Arab Palestinians establish a "functioning" government as the sole representative of the Palestinian People? What government was that?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I thought, and I could be wrong, that The Palestinian side has the right to make any and all alterations to the Local Government boundaries in the West Bank, within areas A and B as defined in the Oslo Accord; NOT AREA C.

It is all occupied territory. Palestinian's rights cannot be violated in it, It doesn't matter what letter you put on it.

 

[Mindful]

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted to keep the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem on Friday.

It voted 97-3 on an amendment that sets aside funding to maintain the Jerusalem embassy, making it harder to reverse former President Donald Trump’s move of the embassy from Tel Aviv. Biden has said he does not intend to move the embassy back to Tel Aviv.
The amendment, co-sponsored by 21 Republicans led by James Inhofe of Oklahoma, was added to the massive $1.9 trillion budget bill the Senate passed as part of President Joe Biden’s relief package.

The amendment sets aside funding to maintain the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem making it harder to reverse former President Donald Trump’s move of the embassy from Tel Aviv. Biden had said he was not, in any case, going to move the embassy.

The three senators who voted against were all Democrats: Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tom Carper of Delaware.

“Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and I am proud to introduce legislation to protect the U.S. Embassy from relocation or being downgraded,” Inhofe said in a statement after the vote.

Senate overwhelmingly votes to keep embassy in Jerusalem - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

There were only three Democratic dissenters.

www.jta.org

 

[Mindful]

For the umpteenth time:

Although one day it might, Palestine doesn’t exist today. An independent Arab Palestine has never existed. It didn’t exist under the Ottoman rule or the British Mandate or, in the end, under a United Nations Partition Plan that was rejected by every single Arab state and Palestinian leadership. It didn’t exist when the Palestinians were governed by governments in Jordan and Egypt (a time when there was virtually no international pressure to create an independent Palestine) and it didn’t come into existence when the Arab states rejected Israel’s peace gestures after the 1967 and 1973 wars.

Yasser Arafat ultimately rejected peace in every negotiation he ever participated in, embracing Intifada instead. Palestine didn’t exist after Israel granted Gaza autonomy and the populace turned to the terrorists of Hamas, and it won’t exist until Hamas and Fatah stop engaging in and supporting terrorism and drop their absurd demands for Jerusalem and the Right of Return.

Rashida Tlaib can put as many sticky notes over Israel as she likes, and it won’t change this reality.

Sorry You're Offended, But 'Palestine' Does Not Exist

New York City politicians punish a councilman for stating a historical fact about the non-existence of a Palestine nation.

thefederalist.com

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:

◈ The term "occupation" has a very specific meaning. For over a century, "Occupation" has been defined as:

• The 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.

◈ IF everyone, everywhere had the very same "rights" THEN there wouldn't be a need for 9 core international human rights instruments, plus an additional 9 "optional" protocols. "Optional" is an important aspect to the issue of "rights."

I thought, and I could be wrong, that The Palestinian side has the right to make any and all alterations to the Local Government boundaries in the West Bank, within areas A and B as defined in the Oslo Accord; NOT AREA C.

It is all occupied territory. Palestinian's rights cannot be violated in it, It doesn't matter what letter you put on it.

(COMMENT - RIGHTS)

Just like the Rights of Canadians in Canada (our northern border) and the Rights of Mexicans in Mexico (our southern border) differ from the Rights of Americans in the US, so it is in the Middle East. Not every country is a member of all 9 Covenants. And not every country that has signed the 9 Covenants also signed the Optional Protocols.

The "Rights" of citizens in America are considerably more extensive than the Rights of citizens in Egypt, Israel, and Jordan. Egypt, Israel, and Jordan are Countries that have both Signed and Ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (according to the UN). Oddly enough, America is a Country that did Sign but not, in the last 40 years since, Ratified the CCPR (and not likely to in the near future). Yet, as I said, American Citizens have the greatest cumulative Civil and Political Rights of any country in the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region.

SO! To say that "Palestinian's rights cannot be violated" is a paradox. Neither the Ramallah Government (State of Palestine) nor the Gaza Government have signed onto the CCPR. What exactly are these Rights?

(COMMENT - OCCUPIED)

I want to make it clear that I interpret what you mean when you say "It is all occupied territory" you mean → Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south. This is (basically) that portion of the former trustee territory, formed by the Mandate for Palestine → from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is fallacious propaganda intended to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the Arab Palestinians have some legitimate claim to the entirety of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied (less Jordan).

This notion is, without question, "misinformation."

​

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “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.” Thus, occupation is a factual situation, one regulated by IHL.
SOURCE: Footnote 1, Page 7, Introduction • Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory, International Committee of the Red Cross

The Paradox of Arab Palestinian inconsistencies.

Occupation implies "foreign territory." IF the Occupation of the West Bank is "Foreign Territory" THEN there must be a delineation between the West Bank and Israel.

The Arab Palestinians cannot have it both ways.

Paradox ONE: Either it is:

◈ It is NOT "Foreign Territory, in which case the Arab Palestinian Territory only extends to the eastern border of Israel, or → it is NOT an occupation and the conflict is a Civil War [a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)] between two factions or the population. ​

OR​

​

◈ It is "Foreign Territory" in which case one recognize entity is trying to take over another recognized entity [an International Armed Conflict (IAC)].​

Paradox TWO: Either:

◈ Israel engaged Jordanian Forces in the West Bank and Occupied territory from which Jordanian forces withdrew.​

OR​

​

◈ Israel filled a void over territory with no competent government of Arab Palestinians (Terra Nullius).​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:

◈ The term "occupation" has a very specific meaning. For over a century, "Occupation" has been defined as:

• The 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.

◈ IF everyone, everywhere had the very same "rights" THEN there wouldn't be a need for 9 core international human rights instruments, plus an additional 9 "optional" protocols. "Optional" is an important aspect to the issue of "rights."

I thought, and I could be wrong, that The Palestinian side has the right to make any and all alterations to the Local Government boundaries in the West Bank, within areas A and B as defined in the Oslo Accord; NOT AREA C.

It is all occupied territory. Palestinian's rights cannot be violated in it, It doesn't matter what letter you put on it.

(COMMENT - RIGHTS)

Just like the Rights of Canadians in Canada (our northern border) and the Rights of Mexicans in Mexico (our southern border) differ from the Rights of Americans in the US, so it is in the Middle East. Not every country is a member of all 9 Covenants. And not every country that has signed the 9 Covenants also signed the Optional Protocols.

The "Rights" of citizens in America are considerably more extensive than the Rights of citizens in Egypt, Israel, and Jordan. Egypt, Israel, and Jordan are Countries that have both Signed and Ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (according to the UN). Oddly enough, America is a Country that did Sign but not, in the last 40 years since, Ratified the CCPR (and not likely to in the near future). Yet, as I said, American Citizens have the greatest cumulative Civil and Political Rights of any country in the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region.

SO! To say that "Palestinian's rights cannot be violated" is a paradox. Neither the Ramallah Government (State of Palestine) nor the Gaza Government have signed onto the CCPR. What exactly are these Rights?

(COMMENT - OCCUPIED)

I want to make it clear that I interpret what you mean when you say "It is all occupied territory" you mean → Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south. This is (basically) that portion of the former trustee territory, formed by the Mandate for Palestine → from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is fallacious propaganda intended to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the Arab Palestinians have some legitimate claim to the entirety of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied (less Jordan).

This notion is, without question, "misinformation."

​

​

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “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.” Thus, occupation is a factual situation, one regulated by IHL.​

SOURCE: Footnote 1, Page 7, Introduction • Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory, International Committee of the Red Cross​

​

​

The Paradox of Arab Palestinian inconsistencies.

Occupation implies "foreign territory." IF the Occupation of the West Bank is "Foreign Territory" THEN there must be a delineation between the West Bank and Israel.

The Arab Palestinians cannot have it both ways.

Paradox ONE: Either it is:

◈ It is NOT "Foreign Territory, in which case the Arab Palestinian Territory only extends to the eastern border of Israel, or → it is NOT an occupation and the conflict is a Civil War [a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)] between two factions or the population. ​

​

OR​

​

◈ It is "Foreign Territory" in which case one recognize entity is trying to take over another recognized entity [an International Armed Conflict (IAC)].​

Paradox TWO: Either:

◈ Israel engaged Jordanian Forces in the West Bank and Occupied territory from which Jordanian forces withdrew.​

​

OR​

​

◈ Israel filled a void over territory with no competent government of Arab Palestinians (Terra Nullius).​

Most Respectfully,
R

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.

You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:

◈ The term "occupation" has a very specific meaning. For over a century, "Occupation" has been defined as:

• The 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.

◈ IF everyone, everywhere had the very same "rights" THEN there wouldn't be a need for 9 core international human rights instruments, plus an additional 9 "optional" protocols. "Optional" is an important aspect to the issue of "rights."

I thought, and I could be wrong, that The Palestinian side has the right to make any and all alterations to the Local Government boundaries in the West Bank, within areas A and B as defined in the Oslo Accord; NOT AREA C.

It is all occupied territory. Palestinian's rights cannot be violated in it, It doesn't matter what letter you put on it.

(COMMENT - RIGHTS)

Just like the Rights of Canadians in Canada (our northern border) and the Rights of Mexicans in Mexico (our southern border) differ from the Rights of Americans in the US, so it is in the Middle East. Not every country is a member of all 9 Covenants. And not every country that has signed the 9 Covenants also signed the Optional Protocols.

The "Rights" of citizens in America are considerably more extensive than the Rights of citizens in Egypt, Israel, and Jordan. Egypt, Israel, and Jordan are Countries that have both Signed and Ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (according to the UN). Oddly enough, America is a Country that did Sign but not, in the last 40 years since, Ratified the CCPR (and not likely to in the near future). Yet, as I said, American Citizens have the greatest cumulative Civil and Political Rights of any country in the Middle East and North African (MENA) Region.

SO! To say that "Palestinian's rights cannot be violated" is a paradox. Neither the Ramallah Government (State of Palestine) nor the Gaza Government have signed onto the CCPR. What exactly are these Rights?

(COMMENT - OCCUPIED)

I want to make it clear that I interpret what you mean when you say "It is all occupied territory" you mean → Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south. This is (basically) that portion of the former trustee territory, formed by the Mandate for Palestine → from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is fallacious propaganda intended to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the Arab Palestinians have some legitimate claim to the entirety of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied (less Jordan).

This notion is, without question, "misinformation."

​

​

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “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.” Thus, occupation is a factual situation, one regulated by IHL.​

SOURCE: Footnote 1, Page 7, Introduction • Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory, International Committee of the Red Cross​

​

​

The Paradox of Arab Palestinian inconsistencies.

Occupation implies "foreign territory." IF the Occupation of the West Bank is "Foreign Territory" THEN there must be a delineation between the West Bank and Israel.

The Arab Palestinians cannot have it both ways.

Paradox ONE: Either it is:

◈ It is NOT "Foreign Territory, in which case the Arab Palestinian Territory only extends to the eastern border of Israel, or → it is NOT an occupation and the conflict is a Civil War [a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)] between two factions or the population. ​

​

OR​

​

◈ It is "Foreign Territory" in which case one recognize entity is trying to take over another recognized entity [an International Armed Conflict (IAC)].​

Paradox TWO: Either:

◈ Israel engaged Jordanian Forces in the West Bank and Occupied territory from which Jordanian forces withdrew.​

​

OR​

​

◈ Israel filled a void over territory with no competent government of Arab Palestinians (Terra Nullius).​

Most Respectfully,
R

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.

You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

False premise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty.

Cool story, bro.

What territory? Who defined it?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are missing a critical point.

ARTICLE 1 • The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a ) a permanent population;​

b ) a defined territory;​

c ) government; and​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

SOURCE: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.
You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

You cited "false premise" is in itself a "false premise." While there are such things as "failed states," there is no such thing as a sovereign power that does not have the to govern without external interference. And although we speak of Sovereignty and Independence as if they are two entirely different things, they are interlocking. IF a territory is "independent" and has the (unencumbered) authority to govern within a territory THEN it is exercising sovereignty.

You can (probably must) look at the issue of sovereignty and independence from two different realms: one of legal and one of political concepts. While many have written that legal sovereign is absolute and its will is illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable; in the practical sense of the real-world, politics simply will not allow it. As you have said before, not very many nations are just going to allow a segment of society to get up and declare independence and sovereignty. The Arab Palestinians have not, in nearly a millennium, exercised sovereignty over a territory that was independent unto them.

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.
SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF

You will no doubt take notice that, the first two Articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) it applies to "each State Party to the present Covenant" (the CCPR).

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." What happens when the State of Israel (a signatory to the Convention) declares their independence and has to fight to defend that independence and sovereignty from being usurped by hostile Arab Palestinians interests (NOT a signatory to the present Convention)?"​

You are going to do a lot better than just to say, they have the "right" based on non-binding agreements or other binding agreements they attempt to retroactively apply. Nor can you use a binding agreement that recalls the illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable right without the specificity necessary to meet the generally accepted criteria outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are missing a critical point.

​

​

ARTICLE 1 • The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

a ) a permanent population;​

b ) a defined territory;​

c ) government; and​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

SOURCE: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

​

​

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.
You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

You cited "false premise" is in itself a "false premise." While there are such things as "failed states," there is no such thing as a sovereign power that does not have the to govern without external interference. And although we speak of Sovereignty and Independence as if they are two entirely different things, they are interlocking. IF a territory is "independent" and has the (unencumbered) authority to govern within a territory THEN it is exercising sovereignty.

You can (probably must) look at the issue of sovereignty and independence from two different realms: one of legal and one of political concepts. While many have written that legal sovereign is absolute and its will is illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable; in the practical sense of the real-world, politics simply will not allow it. As you have said before, not very many nations are just going to allow a segment of society to get up and declare independence and sovereignty. The Arab Palestinians have not, in nearly a millennium, exercised sovereignty over a territory that was independent unto them.

​

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.​

SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF​

​

​

You will no doubt take notice that, the first two Articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) it applies to "each State Party to the present Covenant" (the CCPR).

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." What happens when the State of Israel (a signatory to the Convention) declares their independence and has to fight to defend that independence and sovereignty from being usurped by hostile Arab Palestinians interests (NOT a signatory to the present Convention)?"​

You are going to do a lot better than just to say, they have the "right" based on non-binding agreements or other binding agreements they attempt to retroactively apply. Nor can you use a binding agreement that recalls the illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable right without the specificity necessary to meet the generally accepted criteria outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.

SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF

This does not apply to I/P.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are missing a critical point.

​

​

ARTICLE 1 • The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

a ) a permanent population;​

b ) a defined territory;​

c ) government; and​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

SOURCE: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

​

​

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.
You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

You cited "false premise" is in itself a "false premise." While there are such things as "failed states," there is no such thing as a sovereign power that does not have the to govern without external interference. And although we speak of Sovereignty and Independence as if they are two entirely different things, they are interlocking. IF a territory is "independent" and has the (unencumbered) authority to govern within a territory THEN it is exercising sovereignty.

You can (probably must) look at the issue of sovereignty and independence from two different realms: one of legal and one of political concepts. While many have written that legal sovereign is absolute and its will is illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable; in the practical sense of the real-world, politics simply will not allow it. As you have said before, not very many nations are just going to allow a segment of society to get up and declare independence and sovereignty. The Arab Palestinians have not, in nearly a millennium, exercised sovereignty over a territory that was independent unto them.

​

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.​

SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF​

​

​

You will no doubt take notice that, the first two Articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) it applies to "each State Party to the present Covenant" (the CCPR).

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." What happens when the State of Israel (a signatory to the Convention) declares their independence and has to fight to defend that independence and sovereignty from being usurped by hostile Arab Palestinians interests (NOT a signatory to the present Convention)?"​

You are going to do a lot better than just to say, they have the "right" based on non-binding agreements or other binding agreements they attempt to retroactively apply. Nor can you use a binding agreement that recalls the illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable right without the specificity necessary to meet the generally accepted criteria outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.

SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF

This does not apply to I/P.

Hurt feelings?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are missing a critical point.

​

​

ARTICLE 1 • The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

a ) a permanent population;​

b ) a defined territory;​

c ) government; and​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

SOURCE: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

​

​

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.
You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

You cited "false premise" is in itself a "false premise." While there are such things as "failed states," there is no such thing as a sovereign power that does not have the to govern without external interference. And although we speak of Sovereignty and Independence as if they are two entirely different things, they are interlocking. IF a territory is "independent" and has the (unencumbered) authority to govern within a territory THEN it is exercising sovereignty.

You can (probably must) look at the issue of sovereignty and independence from two different realms: one of legal and one of political concepts. While many have written that legal sovereign is absolute and its will is illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable; in the practical sense of the real-world, politics simply will not allow it. As you have said before, not very many nations are just going to allow a segment of society to get up and declare independence and sovereignty. The Arab Palestinians have not, in nearly a millennium, exercised sovereignty over a territory that was independent unto them.

​

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.​

SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF​

​

​

You will no doubt take notice that, the first two Articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) it applies to "each State Party to the present Covenant" (the CCPR).

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." What happens when the State of Israel (a signatory to the Convention) declares their independence and has to fight to defend that independence and sovereignty from being usurped by hostile Arab Palestinians interests (NOT a signatory to the present Convention)?"​

You are going to do a lot better than just to say, they have the "right" based on non-binding agreements or other binding agreements they attempt to retroactively apply. Nor can you use a binding agreement that recalls the illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable right without the specificity necessary to meet the generally accepted criteria outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

Most Respectfully,
R

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

What was Israel's so called permanent population?

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel or any document where Israel defined its territory?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do they keep building without permits? Masochists?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Future of the West Bank
SUBTOPIC: Two Issues Mixed Together... (Occupation and Rights)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are missing a critical point.

​

​

ARTICLE 1 • The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:​

​

a ) a permanent population;​

b ) a defined territory;​

c ) government; and​

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

SOURCE: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

​

​

The people of a defined territory have the right to independence and sovereignty. When these rights are defined there is no mention of a state or government.
You believe that sovereignty only applies to independent states. This is not true. Then you base your conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

You cited "false premise" is in itself a "false premise." While there are such things as "failed states," there is no such thing as a sovereign power that does not have the to govern without external interference. And although we speak of Sovereignty and Independence as if they are two entirely different things, they are interlocking. IF a territory is "independent" and has the (unencumbered) authority to govern within a territory THEN it is exercising sovereignty.

You can (probably must) look at the issue of sovereignty and independence from two different realms: one of legal and one of political concepts. While many have written that legal sovereign is absolute and its will is illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable; in the practical sense of the real-world, politics simply will not allow it. As you have said before, not very many nations are just going to allow a segment of society to get up and declare independence and sovereignty. The Arab Palestinians have not, in nearly a millennium, exercised sovereignty over a territory that was independent unto them.

​

The right to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues for U.S. foreign policymakers and the international community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so much from whether there exists a right to self-determination, which is included in many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right—a group, people, or a nation—and what exactly the right confers. At the same time, the international system, particularly in the post–World War II era, has steadfastly defended the inviolability of existing nation-states’ borders, regardless of how and when they were determined.​

SOURCE: Summary: SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession, ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITHTHEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF​

​

​

You will no doubt take notice that, the first two Articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) it applies to "each State Party to the present Covenant" (the CCPR).

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." What happens when the State of Israel (a signatory to the Convention) declares their independence and has to fight to defend that independence and sovereignty from being usurped by hostile Arab Palestinians interests (NOT a signatory to the present Convention)?"​

You are going to do a lot better than just to say, they have the "right" based on non-binding agreements or other binding agreements they attempt to retroactively apply. Nor can you use a binding agreement that recalls the illimitable, indivisible, and inalienable right without the specificity necessary to meet the generally accepted criteria outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

Most Respectfully,
R

IF a territory is "independent" and has the (unencumbered) authority to govern within a territory THEN it is exercising sovereignty.

If it is occupied it does not.