Gaza army

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For four millennium (plus) lands and borders --- countries and empires --- kingdoms and governments, have evolved and changed in leadership, sizes and shapes. What once was the Garden of Eden (Book of Genesis) once believed situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers run into the sea, is now the apex of several Arab/Persian states, still fighting amongst themselves today as they were 2000 years ago.

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The territories and boundaries are historically changing with time and the migration of people. Palestine, as was defined by the Allied Powers at the end of WWI, also changed. what we call Palestine today (by that ancient regional name) must have been know by several names since the time of the Canaanites 2000 years BCE.

Palestinian in the time of Ham and Joshua, was an unknown and undefined plot then as it is still argued today.

International borders are "man-made." This is true, particularly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions, as well as Africa. One needs only look at the map and you will see all the straight line segments that make-up the borders. Before the outbreak of the American Civil War, everything from Tunis (North Africa) to Kuwait (Court of Sheikhs on the Persian Gulf), and from Kuwait to Belgrade (Serbia) was under the Ottoman Empire. Little old Palestine was a regional name divided up among the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (AKA: Sanjak of Jerusalem --- Ottoman special administrative status) and the Vilayet's of Beirut and Syria. It wasn't even completely under the same Imperial subdivision of the Sultan.

Just as the all the rest of the lands, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, evolved, so did that little space known by some as Palestine. But your concept of Palestinian International Borders is completely skewed and distorted. The border of which you speak were established by the Allied Powers based, not on the domain of a specific inhabitance, but based on the decisions made by two Allied Power (France and Britain). The agreement for divide the region was not made on the basis of the enemy inhabitance, but by two Allied Power Civil Servants (Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot), and the borders were drawn, not on the basis of the inhabitance, but on the survey made by a Joint British and French Surveyor Teams.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the same foundational concept.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I get an error code as well.

You have to go back to Posting #165 and read it. I even highlighted the applicable phrase.

Those are dead links so I can't determine what you are saying.

(COMMENT)

GOTO the ICRC SITE and then follow the links and Select ARTICLE I for both Protocols:

• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • General principles and scope of application = Article I
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • Material field of application = Article I

These links will help you distinguish the difference between what is considered an "International Conflict" and what is an "Non-International Conflict."

• NOTE: I tested the links here. The two BOLDED LINKS will take you directly to the cut'n'paste.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is all I could find that is relevant.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Non-international armed conflict
a. Non-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations
occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the
armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central
government.

http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The Manual on the Law of NIAC.pdf

The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict.

(COMMENT)

If you claim the entire conflict is in the regional area of Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, then, none of this applies:

• colonial domination
• alien occupation and against racist régimes
• exercise of their right of self-determination

This are international conflict issues under the General Principles Article 1(4) Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

Like I said before, I don't care if you call it a NIAC or a IAC. But you cannot mix apples and oranges. Colonial domination, alien occupation and self-determination are IAC issue --- NOT NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

For four millennium (plus) lands and borders --- countries and empires --- kingdoms and governments, have evolved and changed in leadership, sizes and shapes. What once was the Garden of Eden (Book of Genesis) once believed situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers run into the sea, is now the apex of several Arab/Persian states, still fighting amongst themselves today as they were 2000 years ago.

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

The territories and boundaries are historically changing with time and the migration of people. Palestine, as was defined by the Allied Powers at the end of WWI, also changed. what we call Palestine today (by that ancient regional name) must have been know by several names since the time of the Canaanites 2000 years BCE.

Palestinian in the time of Ham and Joshua, was an unknown and undefined plot then as it is still argued today.

International borders are "man-made." This is true, particularly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions, as well as Africa. One needs only look at the map and you will see all the straight line segments that make-up the borders. Before the outbreak of the American Civil War, everything from Tunis (North Africa) to Kuwait (Court of Sheikhs on the Persian Gulf), and from Kuwait to Belgrade (Serbia) was under the Ottoman Empire. Little old Palestine was a regional name divided up among the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (AKA: Sanjak of Jerusalem --- Ottoman special administrative status) and the Vilayet's of Beirut and Syria. It wasn't even completely under the same Imperial subdivision of the Sultan.

Just as the all the rest of the lands, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, evolved, so did that little space known by some as Palestine. But your concept of Palestinian International Borders is completely skewed and distorted. The border of which you speak were established by the Allied Powers based, not on the domain of a specific inhabitance, but based on the decisions made by two Allied Power (France and Britain). The agreement for divide the region was not made on the basis of the enemy inhabitance, but by two Allied Power Civil Servants (Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot), and the borders were drawn, not on the basis of the inhabitance, but on the survey made by a Joint British and French Surveyor Teams.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Indeed.

And the habitual residents of the respective successor states became nationals and citizens of those states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the same foundational concept.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I get an error code as well.

You have to go back to Posting #165 and read it. I even highlighted the applicable phrase.

Those are dead links so I can't determine what you are saying.

(COMMENT)

GOTO the ICRC SITE and then follow the links and Select ARTICLE I for both Protocols:

• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • General principles and scope of application = Article I
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • Material field of application = Article I

These links will help you distinguish the difference between what is considered an "International Conflict" and what is an "Non-International Conflict."

• NOTE: I tested the links here. The two BOLDED LINKS will take you directly to the cut'n'paste.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is all I could find that is relevant.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Non-international armed conflict
a. Non-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations
occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the
armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central
government.

http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The Manual on the Law of NIAC.pdf

The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict.

(COMMENT)

If you claim the entire conflict is in the regional area of Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, then, none of this applies:

• colonial domination
• alien occupation and against racist régimes
• exercise of their right of self-determination

This are international conflict issues under the General Principles Article 1(4) Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

Like I said before, I don't care if you call it a NIAC or a IAC. But you cannot mix apples and oranges. Colonial domination, alien occupation and self-determination are IAC issue --- NOT NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is unique in history because the alien occupation and colonial domination were accomplished by foreign non state actors.

There is no "foreign state" it all took place inside Palestine

 

[Roudy]

Tryeth that again. Your link doesn't say who's land it was that Israel occupied. What's the matter? You don't know?

I would expect a little better from you Roodboy... Playing the dumbass is not like you at all... Maybe being influenced by "Hollie"!

I didn't post the links to show that the occupied land is owned by others, simply that it is occupied!

Proof enough!

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians doesn't make a people, nation, or identity.

They became Palestinians by international and domestic law after WWI.

Palestine is a European word for the region. The land was never called Palestine during the 700 years under Ottoman rule. People who lived or migrated there after the WWI were British subjects of the Palestine Mandate. They held. Ritish Passports. Even then, the so called Palestinians considered themselves ARABS, not Palestinians, as Palestinian referred to the Jews of the region who had migrated there during the Ottoman Empire and before. The word Palestinian is a name the Arabs hijacked later on in order to create this fake identity for Arab invaders and refugees created as a result of the wars the neighboring Arabs had started. An idea brought about by their Egyptian born and raised terrorist leader and founder Arafat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
No, they are actually driving the non-Jews out. They haven't just said it. LOL

"As Jewish settlements expand, the Palestinians are being driven away"

http://www.economist.com/news/middl...lestinians-are-being-driven-away-squeeze-them

Then why are their more Arabs in the area than ever before?

And do you deny that you Muslims have vowed to drive the Jews into the sea?

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the same foundational concept.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I get an error code as well.

You have to go back to Posting #165 and read it. I even highlighted the applicable phrase.

Those are dead links so I can't determine what you are saying.

(COMMENT)

GOTO the ICRC SITE and then follow the links and Select ARTICLE I for both Protocols:

• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • General principles and scope of application = Article I
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • Material field of application = Article I

These links will help you distinguish the difference between what is considered an "International Conflict" and what is an "Non-International Conflict."

• NOTE: I tested the links here. The two BOLDED LINKS will take you directly to the cut'n'paste.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is all I could find that is relevant.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Non-international armed conflict
a. Non-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations
occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the
armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central
government.

http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The Manual on the Law of NIAC.pdf

The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict.

(COMMENT)

If you claim the entire conflict is in the regional area of Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, then, none of this applies:

• colonial domination
• alien occupation and against racist régimes
• exercise of their right of self-determination

This are international conflict issues under the General Principles Article 1(4) Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

Like I said before, I don't care if you call it a NIAC or a IAC. But you cannot mix apples and oranges. Colonial domination, alien occupation and self-determination are IAC issue --- NOT NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is unique in history because the alien occupation and colonial domination were accomplished by foreign non state actors.

There is no "foreign state" it all took place inside Palestine

Not so, the entire Middle East was Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were defeated after WWI and the Middle East was divided into Muslim lands ruled by Muslims. Arab rulers were brought from various countries and put in place as rulers of other newly formed countries. Israel which consisted of less than 1% of the land the given to Muslims, was designated to be the Jewish state. Arabs had no problems with Saudi rulers being imported to rule countries like Jordan, because they were Muslims.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

 

[Roudy]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

This conflict has always been and will always be about Muslim intolerance and violence toward others.

 

[Challenger]

Here endeth the 'debate' on occupied territory...

If you two numbskulls still believe there is no occupation you need to seek some serious psychiatric help!

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2012/irrc-885-kretzmer.pdf

Tryeth that again. Your link doesn't say who's land it was that Israel occupied. What's the matter? You don't know?

I would expect a little better from you Roodboy... Playing the dumbass is not like you at all... Maybe being influenced by "Hollie"!

I didn't post the links to show that the occupied land is owned by others, simply that it is occupied!

Proof enough!

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians doesn't make a people, nation, or identity.

Neither does American, British, French, German, Polish, Russian Jewish Zionists suddenly calling themselves "Israelis"

 

[Challenger]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

It's not their tiny sliver of land land to give or have, never has been.

 

[Challenger]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

This conflict has always been and will always be about Muslim intolerance and violence toward others.

This conflict has always been and will always be about Zionist intolerance and violence toward others.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the habitual residents became citizens of the Mandate Territory as did the residents of all the sounding residents of the various mandates.

P F Tinmore, et al,

For four millennium (plus) lands and borders --- countries and empires --- kingdoms and governments, have evolved and changed in leadership, sizes and shapes. What once was the Garden of Eden (Book of Genesis) once believed situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers run into the sea, is now the apex of several Arab/Persian states, still fighting amongst themselves today as they were 2000 years ago.

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

The territories and boundaries are historically changing with time and the migration of people. Palestine, as was defined by the Allied Powers at the end of WWI, also changed. what we call Palestine today (by that ancient regional name) must have been know by several names since the time of the Canaanites 2000 years BCE.

Palestinian in the time of Ham and Joshua, was an unknown and undefined plot then as it is still argued today.

International borders are "man-made." This is true, particularly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions, as well as Africa. One needs only look at the map and you will see all the straight line segments that make-up the borders. Before the outbreak of the American Civil War, everything from Tunis (North Africa) to Kuwait (Court of Sheikhs on the Persian Gulf), and from Kuwait to Belgrade (Serbia) was under the Ottoman Empire. Little old Palestine was a regional name divided up among the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (AKA: Sanjak of Jerusalem --- Ottoman special administrative status) and the Vilayet's of Beirut and Syria. It wasn't even completely under the same Imperial subdivision of the Sultan.

Just as the all the rest of the lands, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, evolved, so did that little space known by some as Palestine. But your concept of Palestinian International Borders is completely skewed and distorted. The border of which you speak were established by the Allied Powers based, not on the domain of a specific inhabitance, but based on the decisions made by two Allied Power (France and Britain). The agreement for divide the region was not made on the basis of the enemy inhabitance, but by two Allied Power Civil Servants (Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot), and the borders were drawn, not on the basis of the inhabitance, but on the survey made by a Joint British and French Surveyor Teams.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed.

And the habitual residents of the respective successor states became nationals and citizens of those states.[/QUOTE]

(COMMENT)

Pursuant to the Palestinian Order in Council and the Citizenship Order. Having said that, it still does not give the Palestinians any special status; nor the territory any special connection to the Arab citizens. The right of self-determination, that came into effect with the UN Charter still applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

For the umph-teenth time!

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the same foundational concept.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I get an error code as well.

You have to go back to Posting #165 and read it. I even highlighted the applicable phrase.

Those are dead links so I can't determine what you are saying.

(COMMENT)

GOTO the ICRC SITE and then follow the links and Select ARTICLE I for both Protocols:

• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • General principles and scope of application = Article I
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • Material field of application = Article I

These links will help you distinguish the difference between what is considered an "International Conflict" and what is an "Non-International Conflict."

• NOTE: I tested the links here. The two BOLDED LINKS will take you directly to the cut'n'paste.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is all I could find that is relevant.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Non-international armed conflict
a. Non-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations
occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the
armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central
government.

http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The Manual on the Law of NIAC.pdf

The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict.

(COMMENT)

If you claim the entire conflict is in the regional area of Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, then, none of this applies:

• colonial domination
• alien occupation and against racist régimes
• exercise of their right of self-determination

This are international conflict issues under the General Principles Article 1(4) Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

Like I said before, I don't care if you call it a NIAC or a IAC. But you cannot mix apples and oranges. Colonial domination, alien occupation and self-determination are IAC issue --- NOT NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is unique in history because the alien occupation and colonial domination were accomplished by foreign non state actors.

There is no "foreign state" it all took place inside Palestine

(COMMENT)

The Palestine you describe was not then, and is not now, and never in between, a self-governing state.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

For the umph-teenth time!

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the same foundational concept.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I get an error code as well.

You have to go back to Posting #165 and read it. I even highlighted the applicable phrase.

Those are dead links so I can't determine what you are saying.

(COMMENT)

GOTO the ICRC SITE and then follow the links and Select ARTICLE I for both Protocols:

• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • General principles and scope of application = Article I
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • Material field of application = Article I

These links will help you distinguish the difference between what is considered an "International Conflict" and what is an "Non-International Conflict."

• NOTE: I tested the links here. The two BOLDED LINKS will take you directly to the cut'n'paste.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is all I could find that is relevant.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Non-international armed conflict
a. Non-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations
occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the
armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central
government.

http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The Manual on the Law of NIAC.pdf

The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict.

(COMMENT)

If you claim the entire conflict is in the regional area of Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, then, none of this applies:

• colonial domination
• alien occupation and against racist régimes
• exercise of their right of self-determination

This are international conflict issues under the General Principles Article 1(4) Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

Like I said before, I don't care if you call it a NIAC or a IAC. But you cannot mix apples and oranges. Colonial domination, alien occupation and self-determination are IAC issue --- NOT NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is unique in history because the alien occupation and colonial domination were accomplished by foreign non state actors.

There is no "foreign state" it all took place inside Palestine

(COMMENT)

The Palestine you describe was not then, and is not now, and never in between, a self-governing state.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, but self governing is not a criterion for inalienable rights.

 

[Roudy]

Tryeth that again. Your link doesn't say who's land it was that Israel occupied. What's the matter? You don't know?

I would expect a little better from you Roodboy... Playing the dumbass is not like you at all... Maybe being influenced by "Hollie"!

I didn't post the links to show that the occupied land is owned by others, simply that it is occupied!

Proof enough!

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians doesn't make a people, nation, or identity.

Neither does American, British, French, German, Polish, Russian Jewish Zionists suddenly calling themselves "Israelis"

True. They started calling themselves Israelis after the state of Israel was established and recognized internationally in 1948.

 

[Roudy]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

It's not their tiny sliver of land land to give or have, never has been.

It belonged to the Ottomans, who allowed the Jews to migrate there during their 700 year rule of the land, and then fell under control of the British. So the Arab invaders had very little to say about what happens to the the land.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

It's not their tiny sliver of land land to give or have, never has been.

It was Jewish in the past, ruled over by 45 kings and one queen, and it is CERTAINLY theirs now, just like whatever country you're living in, is yours. What arrogance!!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

Exactly. Like one comedian said: "It's like some person who owns a football field, and there's someone in there with a matchbox. He says the matchbox is really his. And he's not even willing to settle for half the matchbox."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We are not talking about "inalienable" rights. We are talking about which laws are applicable.

P F Tinmore,

For the umph-teenth time!

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the same foundational concept.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I get an error code as well.

(COMMENT)

GOTO the ICRC SITE and then follow the links and Select ARTICLE I for both Protocols:

• Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • General principles and scope of application = Article I
• Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
  • Material field of application = Article I

These links will help you distinguish the difference between what is considered an "International Conflict" and what is an "Non-International Conflict."

• NOTE: I tested the links here. The two BOLDED LINKS will take you directly to the cut'n'paste.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is all I could find that is relevant.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Non-international armed conflict
a. Non-international armed conflicts are armed confrontations
occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the
armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central
government.

http://www.iihl.org/iihl/Documents/The Manual on the Law of NIAC.pdf

The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict.

(COMMENT)

If you claim the entire conflict is in the regional area of Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, then, none of this applies:

• colonial domination
• alien occupation and against racist régimes
• exercise of their right of self-determination

This are international conflict issues under the General Principles Article 1(4) Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

Like I said before, I don't care if you call it a NIAC or a IAC. But you cannot mix apples and oranges. Colonial domination, alien occupation and self-determination are IAC issue --- NOT NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is unique in history because the alien occupation and colonial domination were accomplished by foreign non state actors.

There is no "foreign state" it all took place inside Palestine

(COMMENT)

The Palestine you describe was not then, and is not now, and never in between, a self-governing state.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, but self governing is not a criterion for inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

This makes a difference in questions of jurisdiction and the application of the law in legal systems and courts. This is way, when you look-up certain Customary International Humanitarian Laws, it stipulates whether the applicable environment is IAC or NAIC.

In the case of Arab-Israeli (A-I) Conflict and your position (which you are not the sole advocate - there are many pro-Palestinians that legitimately argue your point), there are a couple of views that can be taken (including yours). But other perspectives include the NAIC elements of:

A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence.
A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same country; or --- between two countries created from a formerly united state.
​

Another view to this discussion is the duration and temporal origin. If the A-I Conflict is considered to be an extension of the 1948-49 War, in which multiple Arab States intervened with with elements of their respective armed forces on the side or another in a non-international armed conflict, it is generally understood that this does not change the qualification of the conflict.

The opposing argument is that an armed conflict confined geographically to the territory of a single territory can, however, be qualified as international if a foreign state intervenes with its armed forces on the side of the rebels fighting against government forces. This argument comes into play when it is considered that at the time of the 1967 Conflict, in which there was an Armistice in place between Israel and Jordan, in which Jordan fired on Israel first, and Israel entered the West Bank (sovereign Jordanian territory), the conflict then shifts from being NIAC --- to --- IAC.

The reason and importance for the distinction:

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:927] Page 928:
"Apart from their concern for sovereignty, governments are reluctant to assume, during non-international armed conflict, legal obligations that require them to apply international rules relevant to the combatants' privilege and prisoner of war status. Under both customary and conventional law applicable in international armed conflict, prisoner of war status derives from the combatants' privilege. This privilege grants members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict immunity from criminal prosecution for legitimate acts of war. Combatants' privilege does not apply to war crimes.2 Thus, the combatants' privilege is a license to kill, maim, or kidnap enemy combatants; destroy military objectives; and cause unavoidable civilian casualties. Governments are unwilling to concur in any rule of international law that would require them to grant their enemies immunity from treason or to grant them a license to attack the government's security personnel and property, subject only to honorable internment as prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict. Such unwillingness was the principal reason for the failure to include in both the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols international armed conflict rules applicable to large-scale civil wars. 3

2. See E. DE VATrEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS 280 (L. White trans. 1792); H. GRoTIUS, COMMENTARY ON THE LAW OF PRIZE AND BOOTY 42,45,68,81 (G. Williams trans. 1604), reprintedrn 22 THE CLASSICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW I (Scott ed. 1950); OFFICE OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, U.S. DEP'T OF WAR, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Orders, No. 100, 1863, art. 57, in THE MILITARY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES 1074 app., 1082 (4th ed. 1901 & Supp. 1911) (the Lieber code); Netherlands Law Concerning Trials of War Criminals in 11 UNITED NATIONS WAR CRIMES COMMISSION, LAw REPORTS OF TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS 86 (1949).

3. DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE OF GENEVA, 2A FINAL RECORD, 322 (1949); DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE OF GENEVA, 2B FINAL RECORD, 44,49-50, 76-77 (1949); 1 INT'L COMM. OF THE RED CROSS, REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT EXPERTS para. 2.336, at 98 (1972); Protocol II, supra note 1, art. 1(a).

When Does the Combatant’s Privilege Apply?
by Jens David Ohlin
For some, the entire discussion of the privilege of combatancy is misplaced because the privilege only applies in international armed conflicts (IAC), and never in non-international armed conflicts (NIAC). Under this well-known view, the concept of “combatant” is an element of the legal structure of IAC, and has no place in NIAC, which includes government forces and rebels. Allegedly, to talk of privileged or unprivileged combatants in NIAC is to make a category mistake.
​

The point here is, that for the pro-Palestinian to take the view that the A-I Conflict is an NIAC is taking a legal risk; both in Customary application of IHL and the application of code before the ICC. Remember, if it is determined that it is entirely within the Palestinian Order in Council defined boundaries, then there is no real international occupation. Both sets of forces originate from the same within the same boundary. If, as you claim, that the Palestinians are conducting operations entirely within Palestine, then Israel is conducting operations within its those same boundaries, under the same citizenship granted by the Allied Powers.

You simply cannot have it both ways. It cannot be the case that Rockets fired into Israel is not international, but then claim Israel is a foreign force when they all come from within the same boundary.

Most Respectfully,
R