Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[montelatici]

Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?

I just got done saying they fired back 4-5 rockets.

So firing rockets indiscriminately is 'self defence' ??

You can't be serious ??

A blockade is an act of war (see Crimes of War Blockade as an Act of War Breaking a blockade is a right of the blockaded party and is a defensive measure. A party to a conflict can only use the weapons that the party has access to. I am sure the Palestinians would accept precision weapons with which they could target their attackers (the IDF) precisely.

On the other hand blowing up schools and apartment buildings killing thousands of unarmed civilians, mostly women and children is self-defense?

 

[toastman]

Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?

I just got done saying they fired back 4-5 rockets.

So firing rockets indiscriminately is 'self defence' ??

You can't be serious ??

A blockade is an act of war (see Crimes of War Blockade as an Act of War Breaking a blockade is a right of the blockaded party and is a defensive measure. A party to a conflict can only use the weapons that the party has access to. I am sure the Palestinians would accept precision weapons with which they could target their attackers (the IDF) precisely.

On the other hand blowing up schools and apartment buildings killing thousands of unarmed civilians, mostly women and children is self-defense?

Nice deflection

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.

There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

(COMMENT)

Yes, Clause 3 of the Preamble to General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, does say this. But having said that, do not misinterpret it as some sort of "right." It is not! It is a type of criminal defense. Remember, GA/RES/ 217A (III) --- Declaration of Human Rights --- is a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the General Assembly." It does not supersede Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV (International Human Rights Law) which holds people performing actions solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, criminally accountable and subject to criminal penalties. It is not a right to use force against the Occupying Power.

However, not until the General Assembly 20th session in 1965 where it was recognized, for the first time, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independent." More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

(COMMENT)

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 49/148 A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994

A/RES/2105(XX) Plenary 23 A/PV.1405 20 Dec. 1965 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
74-6-27 A/L.476/Rev.1, Rev.1Cor.1 and Rev.1/Add.1

The key word here is: "Invited" --- "More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

This is one of the trickiest concepts ever in terms of International Politics and Diplomacy. It is not expected, in our lifetimes anyway, that any of the world powers are going to let this become international law. In terms of contemporary history, the case of Taiwan, wherein China threaten to go to war if the UN allowed and recognized Taiwan's independence from China. And of course there is the case of the Kurdish population and the want for an independent Kurdistan. More recently and through military intervention, the case of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea being annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.

While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.

The specified decision has always applied to the Palestinian people and their struggle for freedom. But again, intentional misinterpretation of that law compelled the passing of Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in its 29th session in 1974. The resolution recognized that the collective rights of the Palestinian people were fully and properly recognized. The resolution recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter (which, in retrospect gives them the same right of self-defense granted to sovereign states). In addition, it granted them the right of national independence, sovereignty and right of return to their homes. The resolution had further replaced the mere reference to Palestinians as "refugees" or "the refugee problem", and made them a "principal party in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East."

(COMMENT)

The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) --- A Question of Palestine, is problematic. It is a non-binding Resolution that makes demands that cannot be reasonably attained.

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:​

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;​

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

It stipulates that the Palestinians have these non-retractable rights, yet does not say:

• Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.
• It says that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination, but does not specify the conflict resolution between what the Palestinians demand (Palestine from the river to the sea) and what is under Israeli sovereignty.
• It indicates that the Palestinians have a right to overrun the Jewish National Home in the return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. But does not indicate the solution to the Israeli Rights to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the Jewish National Home.

Basically, it is unworkable. Given the history of the Jewish People, Israel is never going to put their fate in the hands of anti-semitic Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Those who still found loopholes in international law to deny the Palestinian people the right to defend themselves had to deal with yet another resolution. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, (Act 1 C4), passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination.

(COMMENT)

Well, I encourage everyone to read the Clause for themselves.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
General principles and scope of application
Article 1 [ Link ] -- General principles and scope of application

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 [ Link ] common to those Conventions.
4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
​

First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is in fact General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), a non-binding resolution. But even if it were binding, the Declaration of Principles does not, in any fashion, support the use of force or armed struggle. It restates that (not all inclusive):

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,​

But it is also important to note what key factor are essential:

• 
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.
  
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

There is nothing in the ICRC Geneva Conventions that even remotely suggests that the Palestinians are authorized some use of force to resolve disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,

DID NOT NEED TO BE AS IT ENTERED INTO INERNATIONAL LAW IN 1923

Not!

Where is "Israel" or "Jewish state" mentioned?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate



The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and




ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

 

[Phoenall]

Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?

I just got done saying they fired back 4-5 rockets.

So firing rockets indiscriminately is 'self defence' ??

You can't be serious ??

A blockade is an act of war (see Crimes of War Blockade as an Act of War Breaking a blockade is a right of the blockaded party and is a defensive measure. A party to a conflict can only use the weapons that the party has access to. I am sure the Palestinians would accept precision weapons with which they could target their attackers (the IDF) precisely.

On the other hand blowing up schools and apartment buildings killing thousands of unarmed civilians, mostly women and children is self-defense?

You admitted that this was self defence the same as that employed by the Palestinians as it would be racist in the extreme to say Israel was not covered by those rules. So the BDS movement is an act of war just the same, so Israel is perfectly within its rights to fire on gaza.


Those are the criteria you are applying aren't you Abdul .......................

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is another "non-binding" resolution which does not have the force of law.

It is not unlike similar anniversary resolutions marking the the date in which A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947 was adopted:

• A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978 Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

• A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974 Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

• A/RES/2649 30 November 1970 The importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

They all have very similar language. They are all pre-1988 Resolutions when the PLO, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, made their declaration, stating in part:

• By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
• Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

All four of these General Assembly Resolutions, declaring that the ends justifies the means, were overtaken by events. None of them are any form of law and none of them supersede International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or Customary Law (ICL).

As usual, you do not do enough research.

United Nations
A/RES/37/43

​

General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL

3 December 1982

"2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

(COMMENT)

As far as my research goes, I have, in the last 5 years, cited these moronic resolutions, more times than I can count. They are often used by the barbaric Jihadist and Fedayeen to justify their continued hostile activities in support of the Islamic Resistance Movement Covenant, the Palestinian National Charter, and the more current Policy Paper by Khaled Meshal.

Without regard to what you believe these non-binding resolutions say, none of them:

• Continue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peace-building , in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts.
• Promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures by establishing and encouraging, as appropriate, education and public awareness programs involving all sectors of society.
• Give support to 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 Jihadist and Fedayeen training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against Israel or their citizens.

Under IHL and ICL, ANY Palestinian involved in activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, or in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more Israelis, is criminally liable to internment, imprisonment, or even a death sentence.

Nothing in these Anniversary Resolutions grants war powers to the Palestinians. Nothing can justify terrorism or open attacks on Israeli civilians — ever. No Palestinian grievance, no Palestinian goal, and no Palestinian cause can used as an excuse asymmetric Jihadist and Fedayeen acts. Palestinian hostilities grow and gradually become more violent where they induce conflicts and human life is not protected and impunity prevails.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[teddyearp]

I don't have anything to hide. I don't post on any other political site.

Really? You do not? Well, that not what you allude to here:

It Gets Even More Remarkable Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Let me go over to SinkorSwim and let them know that you are doing the same crap here. By the way, I have a different name there.

Kind of shakes down everything else about you, IMHO.

I suspected SinkorSwim was Phoeny's site. To confirm it was, I used that post as bait. He admitted he banned me (within a few hours) of registering. I guess you didn't quite catch the drift.

So basically, you lied and now you're trying to make excuses for it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not exactly correct. A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language. It cannot be ambiguous.

As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.

But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'

Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.

Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?

The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.

The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.

(COMMENT)

But you are absolutely right in another sense. And this goes back to the point that the Palestinians cannot use General Assembly Resolutions as an authority to further justify hostile actions; especially those that are in violation of International Humanitarian and Customary Law. The Palestinian has absolutely NO authority or right to either attack civilians or assault the Occupation Authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.

But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'

Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.

Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?

The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.

The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.

Thank you so this means that palestine never existed as a nation and never will......................

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

Do you have any documents that say different?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.

There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

(COMMENT)

Yes, Clause 3 of the Preamble to General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, does say this. But having said that, do not misinterpret it as some sort of "right." It is not! It is a type of criminal defense. Remember, GA/RES/ 217A (III) --- Declaration of Human Rights --- is a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the General Assembly." It does not supersede Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV (International Human Rights Law) which holds people performing actions solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, criminally accountable and subject to criminal penalties. It is not a right to use force against the Occupying Power.

However, not until the General Assembly 20th session in 1965 where it was recognized, for the first time, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independent." More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

(COMMENT)

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 49/148 A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994

A/RES/2105(XX) Plenary 23 A/PV.1405 20 Dec. 1965 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
74-6-27 A/L.476/Rev.1, Rev.1Cor.1 and Rev.1/Add.1

The key word here is: "Invited" --- "More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

This is one of the trickiest concepts ever in terms of International Politics and Diplomacy. It is not expected, in our lifetimes anyway, that any of the world powers are going to let this become international law. In terms of contemporary history, the case of Taiwan, wherein China threaten to go to war if the UN allowed and recognized Taiwan's independence from China. And of course there is the case of the Kurdish population and the want for an independent Kurdistan. More recently and through military intervention, the case of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea being annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.

While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.

The specified decision has always applied to the Palestinian people and their struggle for freedom. But again, intentional misinterpretation of that law compelled the passing of Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in its 29th session in 1974. The resolution recognized that the collective rights of the Palestinian people were fully and properly recognized. The resolution recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter (which, in retrospect gives them the same right of self-defense granted to sovereign states). In addition, it granted them the right of national independence, sovereignty and right of return to their homes. The resolution had further replaced the mere reference to Palestinians as "refugees" or "the refugee problem", and made them a "principal party in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East."

(COMMENT)

The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) --- A Question of Palestine, is problematic. It is a non-binding Resolution that makes demands that cannot be reasonably attained.

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:​

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;​

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

It stipulates that the Palestinians have these non-retractable rights, yet does not say:

• Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.
• It says that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination, but does not specify the conflict resolution between what the Palestinians demand (Palestine from the river to the sea) and what is under Israeli sovereignty.
• It indicates that the Palestinians have a right to overrun the Jewish National Home in the return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. But does not indicate the solution to the Israeli Rights to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the Jewish National Home.

Basically, it is unworkable. Given the history of the Jewish People, Israel is never going to put their fate in the hands of anti-semitic Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Those who still found loopholes in international law to deny the Palestinian people the right to defend themselves had to deal with yet another resolution. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, (Act 1 C4), passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination.

(COMMENT)

Well, I encourage everyone to read the Clause for themselves.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
General principles and scope of application
Article 1 [ Link ] -- General principles and scope of application

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 [ Link ] common to those Conventions.
4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
​

First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is in fact General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), a non-binding resolution. But even if it were binding, the Declaration of Principles does not, in any fashion, support the use of force or armed struggle. It restates that (not all inclusive):

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,​

But it is also important to note what key factor are essential:

• 
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.
  
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

There is nothing in the ICRC Geneva Conventions that even remotely suggests that the Palestinians are authorized some use of force to resolve disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,

DID NOT NEED TO BE AS IT ENTERED INTO INERNATIONAL LAW IN 1923

Not!

Where is "Israel" or "Jewish state" mentioned?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate



The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and




ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

Still nothing about "Israel" or a "Jewish state," huh?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are losing it.

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

Do you have any documents that say different?

(COMMENT)

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.

The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.

Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.

(COMMENT)

Yes, Clause 3 of the Preamble to General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, does say this. But having said that, do not misinterpret it as some sort of "right." It is not! It is a type of criminal defense. Remember, GA/RES/ 217A (III) --- Declaration of Human Rights --- is a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the General Assembly." It does not supersede Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV (International Human Rights Law) which holds people performing actions solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, criminally accountable and subject to criminal penalties. It is not a right to use force against the Occupying Power.

(COMMENT)

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 49/148 A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994

A/RES/2105(XX) Plenary 23 A/PV.1405 20 Dec. 1965 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
74-6-27 A/L.476/Rev.1, Rev.1Cor.1 and Rev.1/Add.1

The key word here is: "Invited" --- "More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

This is one of the trickiest concepts ever in terms of International Politics and Diplomacy. It is not expected, in our lifetimes anyway, that any of the world powers are going to let this become international law. In terms of contemporary history, the case of Taiwan, wherein China threaten to go to war if the UN allowed and recognized Taiwan's independence from China. And of course there is the case of the Kurdish population and the want for an independent Kurdistan. More recently and through military intervention, the case of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea being annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.

While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.

(COMMENT)

The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) --- A Question of Palestine, is problematic. It is a non-binding Resolution that makes demands that cannot be reasonably attained.

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:​

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;​

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

It stipulates that the Palestinians have these non-retractable rights, yet does not say:

• Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.
• It says that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination, but does not specify the conflict resolution between what the Palestinians demand (Palestine from the river to the sea) and what is under Israeli sovereignty.
• It indicates that the Palestinians have a right to overrun the Jewish National Home in the return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. But does not indicate the solution to the Israeli Rights to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the Jewish National Home.

Basically, it is unworkable. Given the history of the Jewish People, Israel is never going to put their fate in the hands of anti-semitic Jihadist and Fedayeen.

(COMMENT)

Well, I encourage everyone to read the Clause for themselves.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
General principles and scope of application
Article 1 [ Link ] -- General principles and scope of application

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 [ Link ] common to those Conventions.
4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
​

First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is in fact General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), a non-binding resolution. But even if it were binding, the Declaration of Principles does not, in any fashion, support the use of force or armed struggle. It restates that (not all inclusive):

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,​

But it is also important to note what key factor are essential:

• 
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.
  
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

There is nothing in the ICRC Geneva Conventions that even remotely suggests that the Palestinians are authorized some use of force to resolve disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,

Nope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.

Designated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steve

DESIGNATED MEANS NOTHING IN LAW

International law means everything and Israel exists in International as the Homeland of the Jews in Palestine.


Now when did the UNSC ratify Australia ?

The UN knew it had no right legally nor the authority to partition Palestine. Its own legal subcommittee established to examine the legality to do so and authority to do so concluded as much.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not exactly correct. A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language. It cannot be ambiguous.

As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.

But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'

Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.

Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?

The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.

The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.

(COMMENT)

But you are absolutely right in another sense. And this goes back to the point that the Palestinians cannot use General Assembly Resolutions as an authority to further justify hostile actions; especially those that are in violation of International Humanitarian and Customary Law. The Palestinian has absolutely NO authority or right to either attack civilians or assault the Occupation Authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.

They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are losing it.

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

Do you have any documents that say different?

(COMMENT)

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.

The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.

Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.

The Palestinians never declined self rule.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.

(COMMENT)

Yes, Clause 3 of the Preamble to General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, does say this. But having said that, do not misinterpret it as some sort of "right." It is not! It is a type of criminal defense. Remember, GA/RES/ 217A (III) --- Declaration of Human Rights --- is a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the General Assembly." It does not supersede Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV (International Human Rights Law) which holds people performing actions solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, criminally accountable and subject to criminal penalties. It is not a right to use force against the Occupying Power.

(COMMENT)

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 49/148 A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994

A/RES/2105(XX) Plenary 23 A/PV.1405 20 Dec. 1965 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
74-6-27 A/L.476/Rev.1, Rev.1Cor.1 and Rev.1/Add.1

The key word here is: "Invited" --- "More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

This is one of the trickiest concepts ever in terms of International Politics and Diplomacy. It is not expected, in our lifetimes anyway, that any of the world powers are going to let this become international law. In terms of contemporary history, the case of Taiwan, wherein China threaten to go to war if the UN allowed and recognized Taiwan's independence from China. And of course there is the case of the Kurdish population and the want for an independent Kurdistan. More recently and through military intervention, the case of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea being annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.

While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.

(COMMENT)

The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) --- A Question of Palestine, is problematic. It is a non-binding Resolution that makes demands that cannot be reasonably attained.

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:​

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;​

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

It stipulates that the Palestinians have these non-retractable rights, yet does not say:

• Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.
• It says that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination, but does not specify the conflict resolution between what the Palestinians demand (Palestine from the river to the sea) and what is under Israeli sovereignty.
• It indicates that the Palestinians have a right to overrun the Jewish National Home in the return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. But does not indicate the solution to the Israeli Rights to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the Jewish National Home.

Basically, it is unworkable. Given the history of the Jewish People, Israel is never going to put their fate in the hands of anti-semitic Jihadist and Fedayeen.

(COMMENT)

Well, I encourage everyone to read the Clause for themselves.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
General principles and scope of application
Article 1 [ Link ] -- General principles and scope of application

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 [ Link ] common to those Conventions.
4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
​

First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is in fact General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), a non-binding resolution. But even if it were binding, the Declaration of Principles does not, in any fashion, support the use of force or armed struggle. It restates that (not all inclusive):

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,​

But it is also important to note what key factor are essential:

• 
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.
  
  Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

There is nothing in the ICRC Geneva Conventions that even remotely suggests that the Palestinians are authorized some use of force to resolve disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,

Nope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.

Designated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steve

Eh stick it up your Mohammad. If Israel is "illegal" then so are the dozen or more Arab Muslim shitholes carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire after 700 years of Ottoman Rule: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Yemen, etc. etc.

WHY YOU WOULD CALL ME Mohammed I know not.....I was merely stating fact.........Israel was never RATIFIED by the UN Security Council and thereby making it Unlawful.steve

I didn't call you Mohammad, I said stick it up your Mohammad, Abdul. Israel was declared a state by the UN as all the other Arab Muslim shitholes formed out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Except in the case of Isrsel, five Arab countries attacked it the day it was declared a state.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not exactly correct. A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language. It cannot be ambiguous.

But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'

Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.

Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?

The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.

The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.

(COMMENT)

But you are absolutely right in another sense. And this goes back to the point that the Palestinians cannot use General Assembly Resolutions as an authority to further justify hostile actions; especially those that are in violation of International Humanitarian and Customary Law. The Palestinian has absolutely NO authority or right to either attack civilians or assault the Occupation Authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.

They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.

Palestinians mainly attack Israel which is not occupied territory. Your logic fails

 

[montelatici]

To

NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,

Nope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.

Designated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steve

Eh stick it up your Mohammad. If Israel is "illegal" then so are the dozen or more Arab Muslim shitholes carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire after 700 years of Ottoman Rule: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Yemen, etc. etc.

WHY YOU WOULD CALL ME Mohammed I know not.....I was merely stating fact.........Israel was never RATIFIED by the UN Security Council and thereby making it Unlawful.steve

I didn't call you Mohammad, I said stick it up your Mohammad, Abdul. Israel was declared a state by the UN as all the other Arab Muslim shitholes formed out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Except in the case of Isrsel, five Arab countries attacked it the day it was declared a state.

In an attempt to prevent Israel from evicting non-Jews and stealing even more land.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not exactly correct. A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language. It cannot be ambiguous.

Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.

Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?

The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.

The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.

(COMMENT)

But you are absolutely right in another sense. And this goes back to the point that the Palestinians cannot use General Assembly Resolutions as an authority to further justify hostile actions; especially those that are in violation of International Humanitarian and Customary Law. The Palestinian has absolutely NO authority or right to either attack civilians or assault the Occupation Authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.

They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.

Palestinians mainly attack Israel which is not occupied territory. Your logic fails

According to Tinmore the Hamas terrorist spokesperson, ALL OF ISRAEL IS OCCUPIED and needs to be destroyed in favor of the Islamic Caliphate of Palestine.

 

[montelatici]

Has there ever been a debate that Tinmore won ??

The only debates you ZioNutters win are those that you claim victory in (among yourselves). You lose every debate on this subject based on the facts.

You are like the Baghdad Bob of debates. You claim to have won all the debates that you've actually gotten your butt kicked.

It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.

 

[Roudy]

To

Nope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.

Designated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steve

Eh stick it up your Mohammad. If Israel is "illegal" then so are the dozen or more Arab Muslim shitholes carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire after 700 years of Ottoman Rule: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Yemen, etc. etc.

WHY YOU WOULD CALL ME Mohammed I know not.....I was merely stating fact.........Israel was never RATIFIED by the UN Security Council and thereby making it Unlawful.steve

I didn't call you Mohammad, I said stick it up your Mohammad, Abdul. Israel was declared a state by the UN as all the other Arab Muslim shitholes formed out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Except in the case of Isrsel, five Arab countries attacked it the day it was declared a state.

In an attempt to prevent Israel from evicting non-Jews and stealing even more land.

Hogwash. The Arabs attacked because they wanted to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds amongst themselves. It was never about this mythical Palestine or Palestinian people. The Arabs who attacked Israel denied the existence of a Palestine themselves, they considered it a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, after the attack, when Jordan and Egypt coccupied the West Bank and Gaza for twenty years, there wasn't a peep from ANYBODY about the formation of a Palestinian state. All the while the Jordanians desecrated Jewish and Christian holy sites.

Do you enjoy being a pathological liar for Islamofacism?

 

[thanatos144]

Months later the same Jew haters spewing the same shit........