Who Are The Palestinians?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You just HAD to post a Palestinian propaganda video Tinmore, didn't you


But if he didn't, he might get thrown him out of the cult, toasty.

I think they are required to submit a certain number of offerings per day or else they lose their membership in good standing.
 
You just HAD to post a Palestinian propaganda video Tinmore, didn't you


But if he didn't, he might get thrown him out of the cult, toasty.

I think they are required to submit a certain number of offerings per day or else they lose their membership in good standing.
Or they lose their Muslim Brotherhood stipend.
 
Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.

Greg

I was in the Cairo lobby when al-Tal was killed.
 
Arafat murdered anyone who agreed with Sadat's Plan for a Palestinian state. Why? It meant peace with Israel. Hamas kill anyone who wants peace with Israel. There's a pattern there; and no wonder no Pals are putting up their hands saying "Peace with Israel". How many Palestinians has Hamas murdered lately?? There are real victims here; Israelis murdered by Hamas and Palestinians murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I feel sorry for all of the victims and demand JUSTICE for them.

Greg

I was in the Cairo lobby when al-Tal was killed.

"Peace with Israel" is a death sentence enforced by Arafat of old and Hamas of late!!

Greg
 
despite all the hate, why do so many family members of hamas leaders get expressed to the front of the list for treatment in Israel?
 
Phoenall. Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".

I challange you to that.




Here you go

No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no Israelis, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.

No. Read what Abbas actually said.


NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.

Wow. What a hellacious spin put on this.

Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements

What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state. Not "no Jews". Not genocide. Not ethnic cleansing. Just no settlements.
No settlements = no Jews. Plain as day.

No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements. Let's go by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.

Edited to add:


Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.

...

On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.

"We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.

"East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said.

In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.




Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.
 
I read this and no where is there an actual quote from Abbas about "no Jews". The issue of Jeruselum does however show that the issue is not that clear.

One of the radio shows I listen to on NPR had a piece on Jerusalem and the the issue of property in East Jerusalum. There is a lot of anger towards Jews buying property there as well as the feeling (justified) that there is an intentional government effort to reduce the resident Palestinian population and increase the Jewish population. There is a lack of transparency in the process of buying property and multiple layers of front-groups hiding the identity of the real purchasers so often, a Palestinian seller is led to think he is sellling to a Palestinian but in reality, it's a front for a Jewish developer. The dark side of this, of course is the Palestinian intolerance to Jews moving into that area and if a Palestinian is known to have sold to a Jew, he becomes a target for violence or death threats.

The Israeli government is also complicit in the process. Through use of the zoning process, they allot zones for Jewish purposes but withhold permits for Palestinians. The government also actively subsidizes Jewish projects and there are areas specifically designated for Jews only. They have also used the zoning process to redraw Jerusalem's municipal boundaries in such a way that they enlarge Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and exclude Palestinian areas from Jeruselums boundaries. When you consider the fact that Palestinians residing outside of Jerusalem can lose their Jerusalem residency status if they are gone 7 or more years (but NOT Jewish residents) -it paints a compellling picture of how demographics are being manipulated.

MIDEAST Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem Inter Press Service

According to UN figures, in 2006 at least 1,360 Palestinians had their ID cards revoked. This was five times more than in 2005, and more than in any previous year since Israel began occupying East Jerusalem.

In 2003, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law was enacted, which denies spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents (Jerusalem ID card holders), the right to acquire citizenship or residency status, and thus the opportunity to live with their partners in Israel and Jerusalem.

As a result, thousands of married couples are forced to live apart from one another.

In Israel, foreign spouses who are Jewish are automatically granted citizenship under Israel's Law of Return.

Furthermore, since 1982 the Israeli Interior Ministry has not permitted the registration of Palestinian children as Jerusalem residents if the child's father does not hold a Jerusalem ID card, even if the mother is a Jerusalem ID cardholder.

East Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Until 1995, those who lived abroad for more than seven years or obtained residency or citizenship in another country were deemed liable to lose their residency status. In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from former Arab residents of Jerusalem who could not prove that their "center of life" was still in Jerusalem. This policy was rescinded four years later. In March 2000, the Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, stated that the "quiet deportation" policy would cease, the prior policy would be restored, and Arab natives to Jerusalem would be able to regain residency[62] if they could prove that they have visited Israel at least once every three years. Since December 1995, permanent residency of more than 3,000 individuals "expired," leaving them with neither citizenship nor residency.[62] Despite changes in policy under Sharansky, in 2006 the number of former Arab Jerusalemites to lose their residency status was 1,363, a sixfold increase on the year before.[63] The loss of status is automatic and sometimes occurs without their knowledge.

Israel also has severely curtailed it's "family reunification" to the point where it's disengenious to use that as an indication that there is no racism. Israeli communities are allowed to reject potential applicants based on ethnic or cultural characteristics thus encourging ever more isolation between the two groups. According to one poll - 42% of Israeli's had never met a Palestinian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
In September, Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Admissions Committees Law, which allows communities to reject housing applicants based on “cultural and social suitability” — a legal pretext to deny residency to non-Jews. In practice, even before the law was passed, it was virtually impossible for a Palestinian to buy or rent a home in any majority-Jewish city.

So when you look at this...who is racist? The Palestinians? The Israeli's? Both? Neither?

Each of these - it's the same deliberately contorted quote.

These all say the same thing:

Claim : Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein or Jew free.
Then right below it it shows the quote: "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands".
No Israeli's. In otherwords - they will all be, whatever they are - Palestinian citizens and there will be no foreign military presence or "settlers" who do not take on Palestinian citizenship.

It does NOT say "judenrein" nor does it say "jew free" - that is a dishonest and misleading claim attempting, through the use of the german term - to equate this and Abbas to Hitler and the Nazi's. Very dishonest in my opinion.

In doing so - is this also an attempt to incite hate?

Who is racist?





Who is RACIST look no further than the arab muslims, and here is the link that prove Abbas said no jews in Palestine

Abbas Arabs in Israel No Jews in Palestine Commentary Magazine


Abbas left no doubt about what his vision of peace entails:
“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.


Phoenall. Find me ONE direct quote from Abbas saying "NO JEWS".

I challange you to that.




Here you go

No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no Israelis, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.

No. Read what Abbas actually said.


NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.

Wow. What a hellacious spin put on this.

Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements

What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state. Not "no Jews". Not genocide. Not ethnic cleansing. Just no settlements.





Try reading it again as he said NO JEWS even living on Jewish owned land, just like it was in 1949 till 1967 when they evicted by force all the Jews in gaza and the west bank. Against the terms of the mandate that the Islamic nations had agreed to stand by, you know the one that team Palestine often throws into the equation when talking of the declaration of independence from the Jews.

Show me exactly where he said "No JEWS" even on Jewish owned land because I can't find it in any of Abbas' quotes incuding the articles you referenced.
 
Here you go

No Jews in future Palestinian state Abbas says Israel Jewish Journal

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists that no Israelis, civilians or soldiers, will remain in a future Palestinian state.

No. Read what Abbas actually said.


NO to Palestine Abbas says No Jews in future Palestine Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas told visiting U.S. congressmen that the independent Palestinian state he says he wants will have no Jewish settlements. This demand for an ethnically cleansed Palestine would mean the forced removal of all Jews living in the territories. Since he is calling for that state to exist in all of the territory of the West Bank, Gaza and the part of Jerusalem that was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, that would mean in theory the eviction of over half a million Jews to accommodate his ambition.

Wow. What a hellacious spin put on this.

Abbas says seeking Palestinian state without settlements

What he said was "no settlements" - no enclaves of Israeli owned territory creating a non-contiguous state. Not "no Jews". Not genocide. Not ethnic cleansing. Just no settlements.
No settlements = no Jews. Plain as day.

No settlements = no Israeli controlled islands, which are settlements. Let's go by what he says, not the anti-Pali spin.

Edited to add:


Abbas Not a single Israeli in future Palestinian state
Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.

...

On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.

"We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.

"East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said.

In other words - he's talking about the issue of whether Israeli-controlled settlements are allowed to remain in a proposed future state.




Then that puts the "right of return" of the negotiations doesn't it as the Jews were forcibly removed from their property and had their goods stolen. That is were most of the settlements are placed, on Jewish owned land.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
 
gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, et al,

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
(COMMENT)

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law." That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords) which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations. While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore (Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread), there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations) are very questionable in respect to certain findings. Most certainly, I find the position that "the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."

I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons. But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels. If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures. But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power. Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement. It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue. The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).
 
Last edited:
gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, et al,

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
(COMMENT)

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law." That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords) which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations. While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?

When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore (Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread), there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations) are very questionable in respect to certain findings. Most certainly, I find the position that "the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.


I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons. But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels. If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures. But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power. Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement. It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue. The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
 
gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, et al,

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
(COMMENT)

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law." That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords) which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations. While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?

When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore (Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread), there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations) are very questionable in respect to certain findings. Most certainly, I find the position that "the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.


I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons. But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels. If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures. But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power. Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement. It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue. The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

"All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun"

That's a HUGE lie. Just because YOU don't accept Israel's DOI , doesn't mean squat. If your statement was true, then Israel would never have come into existence.
Just because you hate Israel, doesn't mean you can make up your own rules and change history.
 
gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, et al,

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
(COMMENT)

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law." That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords) which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations. While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?

When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore (Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread), there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations) are very questionable in respect to certain findings. Most certainly, I find the position that "the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.


I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons. But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels. If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures. But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power. Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement. It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue. The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

"International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void

"When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."

Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?
 
gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, et al,

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
(COMMENT)

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law." That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords) which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations. While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?

When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore (Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread), there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations) are very questionable in respect to certain findings. Most certainly, I find the position that "the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.


I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons. But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels. If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures. But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power. Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement. It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue. The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

"International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void

"When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."

Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?
You know that I do not make stuff up.


Article 53
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm
 
gtopa1, Coyote, P F Tinmore, et al,

Both perspective here are flawed --- just a bit.

Not when the settlements were built illegally in defiance of international law.

They were not!!

See "Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria" posted earlier. Why do you liars keep on with that Hamas apologia?

Greg
(COMMENT)

I do not think it is correct in saying that the Area "C" Settlements "were built illegally in defiance of international law." That has yet to be determined given that there is an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords) which sets this aside under the Permanent Status of Negotiations. While the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Article 8(2b)(viii) of the Rome Statutes have a prohibitions, neither apply when the parties have made a consent arrangement.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we?

When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
As discussed earlier with P F Tinmore (Posting #38 --- Rock Throwing Thread), there the Conclusions of the Levy Report (The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria --- Conclusions and Recommendations) are very questionable in respect to certain findings. Most certainly, I find the position that "the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable." And is one of the reasons I asked P F Tinmore to explain his position on "occupation."
It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.


I've noticed that both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli) take issue with whether Israel is considered an "Occupying Power;" obviously for different reasons. But however different the reasons may be, the outcome will have a grave impact on a number of different levels. If Israel is determined to be an "Occupying Power" then Article 68 (GCIV) is applicable and the armed struggle and resistance movement that injures the "Occupying Power" is illegal and punishable under local legal procedures. But if P F Tinmore and the Levy Commission are correct, and the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42) is not strictly applicable, then neither Article 49 GCIV or Article 8 Rome Statutes is applicable; as both pertain to the prohibition of an Occupying Power. Thus, under the interpretation of both P F Tinmore (Pro-Palestinian) and the Levy Commission (Pro-Israeli), settlements would no longer be and issue of legality relative to international humanitarian law, the International criminal code, or the laws of war.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: I found it unusual to see P F Tinmore and the Israelis in agreement. It is only the second time I've noticed it on a major issue. The other, of course is the applicability of Resolution 181(II).

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

"International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

Even if this is true, which I doubt (link), I don't recall ever hearing about any agreements between Israel and the PA being void

"When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid."

Did Hamas actually say this or are you making this up?
You know that I do not make stuff up.


Article 53
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm

Actually, you do make stuff up. But lets not get into that again ...

Thanks for posting the link...
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your source is close.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we? When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
(REFERENCES)

    • "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." SOURCE: Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC

    Part I. General Provisions

  • Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

  • Section III. Occupied territories

    Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What your source (Articles The Jihad Lawyer) interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see. And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power." If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply. But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47). It does not say: "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."

It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
(COMMENT)

Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
(COMMENT)

Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:

Palestine National Charter of 1968

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War. After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.

Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law." Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.

The Law is quite clear:
Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues. The policy is:
  • There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
Most Respectfully,
R
 
15th post
P F Tinmore, et al,

First, this is not even remotely applicable.

You know that I do not make stuff up.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna Convention Treaties.htm
(COMMENT)

First you have to establish that a specific prohibition has been violated, and the timeline. You have neither.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your source is close.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."
Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we? When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.
(REFERENCES)

    • "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." SOURCE: Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
    Part I. General Provisions

  • Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

  • Section III. Occupied territories

    Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
(COMMENT)

What your source (Articles The Jihad Lawyer) interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see. And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power." If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply. But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47). It does not say: "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."

It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.
(COMMENT)

Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.
(COMMENT)

Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:

Palestine National Charter of 1968

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War. After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.

Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law." Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.

The Law is quite clear:
Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues. The policy is:
  • There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
Most Respectfully,
R
What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not playing defense. The plaintiff or claimant, has been for more than half a century, the Arab Palestinian. They have to articulate the "dispute."

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
(COMMENT)

You claim that the Israelis "took the territory at gun point." But I need a better complaint to answer; what they did, when they did it, and who they did it to.

You can't use a domestic issue [(events during a Civil War)(Jewish Palestinians 'vs' Arab Palestinians)], for that is not covered by international laws.

Relative to the Area "C" Settlements, the Oslo Accords stipulate the Process.

Article X, OSLO I
JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.
Article XV, OSLO I
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

ARTICLE XXI, OSLO II
Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

Most Respectfully,
R
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not playing defense. The plaintiff or claimant, has been for more than half a century, the Arab Palestinian. They have to articulate the "dispute."

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?
(COMMENT)

You claim that the Israelis "took the territory at gun point." But I need a better complaint to answer; what they did, when they did it, and who they did it to.

You can't use a domestic issue [(events during a Civil War)(Jewish Palestinians 'vs' Arab Palestinians)], for that is not covered by international laws.

Relative to the Area "C" Settlements, the Oslo Accords stipulate the Process.

Article X, OSLO I
JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.
Article XV, OSLO I
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

ARTICLE XXI, OSLO II
Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

Most Respectfully,
R
That does not answer my questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom