Boycott Israel

[Hossfly]

I´m coming to take over your house Roccor, I will only take 60% the other 40% I will call disputed territory, and provide troops to police that area, I May turn a blind eye if some of my tribe take residence in the disputed territory
you can accept my deal or face the consequences

Caution: Don't shoot any rockets in the house.

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

Well, this can be explained.

I´m coming to take over your house Roccor, I will only take 60% the other 40% I will call disputed territory, and provide troops to police that area, I May turn a blind eye if some of my tribe take residence in the disputed territory
you can accept my deal or face the consequences

(COMMENT)

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

You can quote all the Laws you have made as to why you can take what was mine, I dont make laws but I do have a knife

 

[Hossfly]

You can quote all the Laws you have made as to why you can take what was mine, I dont make laws but I do have a knife

That's what the unwashed do in the ME. Don't understand or follow the rules and gets the knife out. Or rockets, truck bombs, suicide belts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The negotiation is a part of a process that happens when there is a conflict or dispute between one two constituents and their rights.

But a "right" of self-determination is not just a about the Arab-Palestinians and what they think they are owed in the Rule-of-Law for the Western civilization; that does not exist in the Arab League. The Palestinians should know, firsthand, this from their experience relative to Black September and the traitorous Hostile Arab Palestinians who tried to exercise their right of self-determination.

Remember: It was George Habash (AKA: al-Hakim), founder of the Popular Front for Liberate Palestine (PFLP) made the promise that "we will turn the Middle East into a hell." Or when Yasser Arafat, in front of thousands of Palestinians in Amman, promised: "We will liberate our land."
​

Since when do people negotiate their rights?

(COMMENT)

There are few cultures that have suffered more though history from the "tyranny of the majority." In the case of the Palestinian, the international community (the Allied Powers and Council to the League of Nations) took into consideration the political equality. The is a distinction made between the value of the rights for the Arab majority --- as compared to the absolute need and potential loss to the Jewish minority. Given, at the time of the UN Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) recommendation was made, the lack of care when the Jewish were forced back to the Europe by the Americans and British, during the Holocaust.

We call this (sometimes) "special circumstance." Given that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were all Arab League Countries; a small sliver of territory to protect, secure, and preserve the culture.

The preferred method of international community is to negotiate such territorial disputes.

No specific territory was promised to Arab Palestinians. There was a recommendation by the UNSCOP that was rejected by the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, Palestinians don't have rights because of special circumstances?

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

You do have a dark sense of humor.

I don't make laws but I do have a knife

(COMMENT)

I think that it is very predictable that the Palestinian would immediately jump to weapons and confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As said before, the Hostile Arab Palestinians were never denied their "rights."

So, Palestinians don't have rights because of special circumstances?

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian:

Rejected sovereignty as recommended UNSCOP.
Failed in the bid to take by force that which they were unable to acquire through diplomacy.
Successfully exercised their rights in 1950 in the annexation by Jordan.
Failed in the attempt to take by force the Kingdom of Jordan.
Successful in the Declaration of Independence.
​

The decisions made by the Allied Powers of the Great War, were based on considerations and a concept greater than strict compliance. In this case we are looking at a people and culture that are deserving of "Special Consideration."

Example use in Federal Use beyond Criminal Matters:

Sometimes special circumstances can impact a student’s financial aid situation, including certain living arrangements or family situations that may change during your time at Cornell. This may result in the need to clarify your situation with the Office of Financial Aid, or have adjustments made. Explore the links below for further assistance or specifics that might apply to you.
​

Several Universities use the concept of Special Consideration. (Examples)
• Cornell University
• Duke University
• Augsburg University​

The Jewish people and culture were given special consideration for the need of a safe haven to aid in the preservation and defense of future.

The odd thing about Special Consideration, is that is is a positive attribute. It is not used to deny and award, but to reconsider the award because of circumstances not normally considered.

(ONE LAST THING)

The Palestinians never had or were given the rights to any territory (ever!). The "right to self-determination" ( jus cogens rule) does not mean they have some special award of territory. The "right of Self-determination is all about the formation of a government deriving ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed’ and that ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends.

Restated: The Government of Israel was formed through the just powers derived from the Jewish People governed.

This is a true today, as it was in 1948, with the Mandate became destructive of its ends, and the Jewish People formed a new government.

There was no power or authority that ever actually deprived the Palestinians their right. It is because the Palestinians do not understand what the right of self-determination means that the claim arises.

• Self-Determination, Oxford Public International Law
Subject(s):

Secession — Sovereignty — Self-determination — Unification​

Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As said before, the Hostile Arab Palestinians were never denied their "rights."

So, Palestinians don't have rights because of special circumstances?

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian:

Rejected sovereignty as recommended UNSCOP.
Failed in the bid to take by force that which they were unable to acquire through diplomacy.
Successfully exercised their rights in 1950 in the annexation by Jordan.
Failed in the attempt to take by force the Kingdom of Jordan.
Successful in the Declaration of Independence.
​

The decisions made by the Allied Powers of the Great War, were based on considerations and a concept greater than strict compliance. In this case we are looking at a people and culture that are deserving of "Special Consideration."

Example use in Federal Use beyond Criminal Matters:

Sometimes special circumstances can impact a student’s financial aid situation, including certain living arrangements or family situations that may change during your time at Cornell. This may result in the need to clarify your situation with the Office of Financial Aid, or have adjustments made. Explore the links below for further assistance or specifics that might apply to you.
​

Several Universities use the concept of Special Consideration. (Examples)
• Cornell University
• Duke University
• Augsburg University​

The Jewish people and culture were given special consideration for the need of a safe haven to aid in the preservation and defense of future.

The odd thing about Special Consideration, is that is is a positive attribute. It is not used to deny and award, but to reconsider the award because of circumstances not normally considered.

(ONE LAST THING)

The Palestinians never had or were given the rights to any territory (ever!). The "right to self-determination" ( jus cogens rule) does not mean they have some special award of territory. The "right of Self-determination is all about the formation of a government deriving ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed’ and that ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends.

Restated: The Government of Israel was formed through the just powers derived from the Jewish People governed.

This is a true today, as it was in 1948, with the Mandate became destructive of its ends, and the Jewish People formed a new government.

There was no power or authority that ever actually deprived the Palestinians their right. It is because the Palestinians do not understand what the right of self-determination means that the claim arises.

• Self-Determination, Oxford Public International Law
Subject(s):

Secession — Sovereignty — Self-determination — Unification​

Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[MaryL]

How the fuck am I supposed to boycott Israel? Do they produce something that I use?

Exactly. I watched the vid, by the way. I despise rap music, agree with the message as heavy handed as it was. Israel is no threat to world peace. Islamic wackjobs that produce similar slick videos appealing to kids, do their audience also recognize the propaganda in the lyrics?

 

[Billo_Really]

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Most Respectfully,
R

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly. I watched the vid, by the way. I despise rap music, agree with the message as heavy handed as it was. Israel is no threat to world peace. Islamic wackjobs that produce similar slick videos appealing to kids, do their audience also recognize the propaganda in the lyrics?

Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions, that were made to keep the peace.

 

[MaryL]

WHY would I want to boycott Israel? How would I go about boycotting Israel, anyway? No more Kosher Pickles? Wow, No more Hebrew National hotdogs? Islam, Saudi Arabia has BUKU OIL profits, home of Islamic terrorist, funder of terrorism, land of a theistic 13th century kingdom, so MUCH better? Not a peep about Muslim atrocities and outrages and boycotts. Why? Boycott Saudi OIL and also be environmentally friendly and reduce your carbon footprint at the same time. It's a win-win scenario.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be wrong. Although that is the "Rule of Thumb."

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Understand that there are three instances in which "Eminent Domain" is valid.

1. When the action is processed in accordance with the civilian law in force.
2. In the case of imperative military necessity.
3. Deny terrorist safe havens.

• 
  Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
  Private property cannot be confiscated.
  
  The principal rule (#50) of respect for private property is explicitly set forth in some manuals which are applicable in non-international armed conflicts. This rule does not, however, establish a specific separate rule outside the prohibition of destruction or seizure except in case of imperative military necessity (see Rule 50) and the prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52). No rule could be identified for non-international armed conflicts which would prohibit, according to international law, the confiscation of private property, nor is there a rule of international law which allows such confiscation. It is expected, however, that this question would be regulated in national legislation.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism
We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:

1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
2. To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

This is an offshoot of the Law and Order clause.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, the civilian law mimicked Israeli Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

WHY would I want to boycott Israel?

So you won't be complicit in the atrocities Israel commits.

By buying Israeli products or services, you are supporting Israel. By supporting Israel, you are complicit in the crimes Israel commits.

To understand why someone would want to boycott these corporations (like SodaStream, Agrexco, etc), here are a few facts about the occupation:

-The Israeli authorities have maintained their air, land and sea blockade of Gaza, effectively imposing collective punishment on all 1.8m inhabitants.

-Israeli authorities control Palestinian imports and exports.

-They are building illegal Jewish-only settlements in Palestinian territories.

-In 2014, over 2,300 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces. 39 Israelis were killed.​

-Palestinian children are routinely tortured and killed in Israeli prisons.​

Boycotting can best be summed up this way...

Why boycott?

Boycotts enable consumers to:

1. Not be complicit in the practices of unethical corporations through supporting them financially.

2. Large scale boycotts can stop corporations engaging in unethical practices altogether.​

And finally, although this is just a rumor, I've heard boycotting Israel, makes you more attractive to the opposite sex.

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be wrong. Although that is the "Rule of Thumb."

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Understand that there are three instances in which "Eminent Domain" is valid.

1. When the action is processed in accordance with the civilian law in force.
2. In the case of imperative military necessity.
3. Deny terrorist safe havens.

• 
  Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
  Private property cannot be confiscated.
  
  The principal rule (#50) of respect for private property is explicitly set forth in some manuals which are applicable in non-international armed conflicts. This rule does not, however, establish a specific separate rule outside the prohibition of destruction or seizure except in case of imperative military necessity (see Rule 50) and the prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52). No rule could be identified for non-international armed conflicts which would prohibit, according to international law, the confiscation of private property, nor is there a rule of international law which allows such confiscation. It is expected, however, that this question would be regulated in national legislation.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism
We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:

1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
2. To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

This is an offshoot of the Law and Order clause.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, the civilian law mimicked Israeli Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

No it is not wrong. You cannot have a transfer of ownership in an area under occupation. Here's the Law of Occupation, which is the governing principle in the OPT. I've highlighted the ones that show you're off your rocker.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

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).

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Let me say this again, you cannot take possession of any area under occupation. Period.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

 

[Phoenall]

Don't these morons calling for the boycott of Israel understand that they are the ones causing the problems for the filastins. The filastins work on the farms producing the crops that are sold all over the world, and a boycott of Israel will cause them to be made unemployed and destitute

And before Israel they worked on their own farms producing the crops that were sold all over the world.

It doesn't look like Israel is doing them a big favor.

Look at the evidence again as they barely had enough produce to feed their families due to inexpert farming methods. This is why they sold so much of their land to the Jews. The Jews made the desert bloom and turned it around so it produced a surplus, that is what was sold all over the world. To produce a surplus you need to work hard, and the arab muslims found that concept very hard to entertain. From 1967 the land was once again fertile and the arab muslims did the grunt work

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, et al,

That would be wrong. Although that is the "Rule of Thumb."

Governments may take private property through their power of "eminent domain" or may regulate it by exercising their Police Power. There are a variety are subject to eminent domain, such as natural resources, mineral rights and land utilization and title rights. The government takes private property through depending on the power of the state and the legal processes enforce.

Eminent domain is illegal in an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Understand that there are three instances in which "Eminent Domain" is valid.

1. When the action is processed in accordance with the civilian law in force.
2. In the case of imperative military necessity.
3. Deny terrorist safe havens.

• 
  Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
  Private property cannot be confiscated.
  
  The principal rule (#50) of respect for private property is explicitly set forth in some manuals which are applicable in non-international armed conflicts. This rule does not, however, establish a specific separate rule outside the prohibition of destruction or seizure except in case of imperative military necessity (see Rule 50) and the prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52). No rule could be identified for non-international armed conflicts which would prohibit, according to international law, the confiscation of private property, nor is there a rule of international law which allows such confiscation. It is expected, however, that this question would be regulated in national legislation.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism
We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:

1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
2. To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

This is an offshoot of the Law and Order clause.

• 
  Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, the civilian law mimicked Israeli Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

No it is not wrong. You cannot have a transfer of ownership in an area under occupation. Here's the Law of Occupation, which is the governing principle in the OPT. I've highlighted the ones that show you're off your rocker.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

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).

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Let me say this again, you cannot take possession of any area under occupation. Period.

So this means that Jordan and Egypt could not transfer the land to the Palestinians, and have to negotiate a deal with Israel

Or does this work differently for the Palestinians seeing as it disenfranchises the Jews ?