Gaza army

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not claim the UN created anything. I stated it "recognized" Israel as a state and that the body of "states" that make-up the General Assembly recognized Israel as a state. What makes Israel a state, as I said was that it declared Independence (exercising the right of self-determination) under the criteria and a process that other "states" established as right and proper.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe. I could say the same about your premise: That it is not an international conflict.

How is the term "Armed Conflict" defined in international humanitarian law?
17-03-2008
Opinion paper - definition of "international armed conflict" and "non-international armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have entrusted the ICRC, through the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, " to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof " Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).. It is on this basis that the ICRC takes this opportunity to present the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of " international armed conflict " and " non-international armed conflict " under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
  
  
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.
​

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.

In order to be a "High Contracting Party" to the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, or the Rome Statutes, the "party" must be a state and have the capacity to enter into the agreement. Both the State of Israel (1948) and the State of Palestine (1988) have entered into treaties and agreements under the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES:

PART II. CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES
SECTION 1. CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Article 6 Capacity of States to Conclude Treaties: Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
​

You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict.

(REFENRENCES)

• Israel Declaration of Independence
• Israeli Declaration to Append the Application to the United Nations
• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)
• Favorable Recommendation of the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, by the UN Security Council
• 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
• Peace Treaty between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
• Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel

(COMMENT)

I can demonstrate quite easily that Israel is a "state:"

• Established under its right to self-determination under the UN guidance proved in the Steps Preparatory to Independence found in General Assembly 181(II).
• Wherein the UN made an official and world-wide public press announcement that the GA/RES/181(II) was implemented.
• Where by the State of Israel made application for FULL membership to the UN.
• Where by the UN Security Council recommended the admission to the UN.
• Where by the General Assembly accepted the State of Israel as a FULL member.

So I only interpret that you are going to claim that the State of Israel was (somehow) illegal recognized by the UN membership and improperly recommended and forwarded by the Security Council. And I can only further imagine that where the UN recognition Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; is flawed.

So, in order for the argument to be made that the conflict is not an international nature, there would be no State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Is that your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.​

Indeed.

The UN has no authority:
To create or disband states.
To transfer land from one people to another.
To create or change borders.

The UN can only give states political recognition. This has everything to do with politics and has nothing to do with law.

Only the people of a defined territory have the right to declare statehood inside their defined territory.

So we must move on from there.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe I used the term "authority." I don't believe I used the terms "create" --- "transfer" --- "disband." I believe the UN used the term "border" in their recognition of Palestine in 2012 (not me)!!! I agree with you. The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else. It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).

You are making an assumption. You are stipulating that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination. The People had the Right of Self-determination, and established their territory. It is outlined by sovereign control for which the Arab Palestinian people cannot challenge, and that all states in every direction understand that Israel exercised their sovereign authority over.

I believe it is the Palestinians that are whining about sovereignty and their territorial integrity. The Palestinian people have never really established sovereign territorial control over any territory with a coherent government. While HAMAS maintains they have control over the Gaza Strip, a completely different group of Palestinians have control over Area "A" and parts of Area "B" --- but not any part of Area "C."

Don't try to rephrase my comment --- trying to make an improper point.

By the time the Palestinians quite messing around, they will have nothing left to call their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

I believe the UN used the term "border" in their recognition of Palestine in 2012 (not me)!!!​

Indeed the UN specifies 1967 borders. There are not, and have never been, 1967 borders. In fact the UN specifically stated that they were not borders.

A political move that has nothing to do with legalities.

My point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not claim the UN created anything. I stated it "recognized" Israel as a state and that the body of "states" that make-up the General Assembly recognized Israel as a state. What makes Israel a state, as I said was that it declared Independence (exercising the right of self-determination) under the criteria and a process that other "states" established as right and proper.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe. I could say the same about your premise: That it is not an international conflict.

How is the term "Armed Conflict" defined in international humanitarian law?
17-03-2008
Opinion paper - definition of "international armed conflict" and "non-international armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have entrusted the ICRC, through the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, " to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof " Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).. It is on this basis that the ICRC takes this opportunity to present the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of " international armed conflict " and " non-international armed conflict " under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
  
  
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.
​

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.

In order to be a "High Contracting Party" to the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, or the Rome Statutes, the "party" must be a state and have the capacity to enter into the agreement. Both the State of Israel (1948) and the State of Palestine (1988) have entered into treaties and agreements under the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES:

PART II. CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES
SECTION 1. CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Article 6 Capacity of States to Conclude Treaties: Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
​

You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict.

(REFENRENCES)

• Israel Declaration of Independence
• Israeli Declaration to Append the Application to the United Nations
• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)
• Favorable Recommendation of the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, by the UN Security Council
• 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
• Peace Treaty between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
• Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel

(COMMENT)

I can demonstrate quite easily that Israel is a "state:"

• Established under its right to self-determination under the UN guidance proved in the Steps Preparatory to Independence found in General Assembly 181(II).
• Wherein the UN made an official and world-wide public press announcement that the GA/RES/181(II) was implemented.
• Where by the State of Israel made application for FULL membership to the UN.
• Where by the UN Security Council recommended the admission to the UN.
• Where by the General Assembly accepted the State of Israel as a FULL member.

So I only interpret that you are going to claim that the State of Israel was (somehow) illegal recognized by the UN membership and improperly recommended and forwarded by the Security Council. And I can only further imagine that where the UN recognition Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; is flawed.

So, in order for the argument to be made that the conflict is not an international nature, there would be no State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Is that your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.​

Indeed.

The UN has no authority:
To create or disband states.
To transfer land from one people to another.
To create or change borders.

The UN can only give states political recognition. This has everything to do with politics and has nothing to do with law.

Only the people of a defined territory have the right to declare statehood inside their defined territory.

So we must move on from there.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe I used the term "authority." I don't believe I used the terms "create" --- "transfer" --- "disband." I believe the UN used the term "border" in their recognition of Palestine in 2012 (not me)!!! I agree with you. The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else. It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).

You are making an assumption. You are stipulating that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination. The People had the Right of Self-determination, and established their territory. It is outlined by sovereign control for which the Arab Palestinian people cannot challenge, and that all states in every direction understand that Israel exercised their sovereign authority over.

I believe it is the Palestinians that are whining about sovereignty and their territorial integrity. The Palestinian people have never really established sovereign territorial control over any territory with a coherent government. While HAMAS maintains they have control over the Gaza Strip, a completely different group of Palestinians have control over Area "A" and parts of Area "B" --- but not any part of Area "C."

Don't try to rephrase my comment --- trying to make an improper point.

By the time the Palestinians quite messing around, they will have nothing left to call their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).​

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Hummm --- Is there an assumption here, embedded in the question?

et al,

If the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) supports the "al-Qassem Brigades," a designated terrorist organization, then --- by extension, HAMAS is a "state that supports terrorism."

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom

Nope, only the al-Qassem Brigades. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

Which is the military wing of Hamas. Ha ha. What a fool you are.

(COMMENT)

But the real issue is that HAMAS (by extension the Palestinians at large) do not recognize Israel's right to exist. And in the greater sense, have pledged to continue a struggle against the existence of Israel. That is, by any measure, a declaration of war which they have pursued since before 1948.

The only way that I can envision the Israelis backing away from the policy of containment is is the UN Security Council absolutely pledges to retaliate against the Palestinians in a militarily decisive manner should the Palestinians launch rockets and mortars, carryout insurgent attacks or acts of terrorism --- should the Israelis lift the blockade and withdraw from the Jordan Valley. If, in the absence of the UNSC to intervene in a 24 hour period to such hostile actions, that the UNSC and the GA pre-authorize a militarily decisive intervention by the IDF without restrictions and occupy the entirety of the State of Palestine; without prejudice towards Israel. Otherwise, all it does is invite the Palestinians to continue their hostile activities.

It would be absolutely ridiculous for the international community to demand that containment measures be lifted from a state that supports a number of different terrorist organizations and then stipulate that hostile efforts initiated by them go without enforcement measures already in place and that penalties to applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

But the real issue is that HAMAS (by extension the Palestinians at large) do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Always wanted to ask this question, "why should they, Zionist Israel does not recognise Palestine?"

What particular right does Israel have to exist over and above any other state in the world? In terms of armed conflict when the war is over both sides make peace and ultimately mutually recognise each other. Zionist Israel is the only country that demands recognition as a pre-requisite to any peace negotiation. Cart before the horse situation, methinks.

(COMMENT)

Relative to recognition:

3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER RABIN TO YASSER ARAFAT:

September 9, 1993

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestinian Liberation Organization

Mr. Chairman,

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

[end]

Posted July 2003
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
​

The Israeli Recognition was absolutely consistent with the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine wherein the Arab League affirmed "the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent "national authority under the command" of the Palestine Liberation Organization (1974), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels." (It should be noted that a "National Command Authority" (NCA) does NOT necessarily imply a government for the state. In fact, the NCA for the United States is a subordinate activity of the Department of Defense. The National Command Authority (NCA) for Pakistan is held under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister Mr Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.) In the case of Palestine, independence was not declared for more than a decade later (1988).

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
SOURCE: Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970)
​

Israel does not claim to have a right beyond that of other people.

Internationally, the "state parties" to the 1948-1949 Arab - Israeli Conflict did not include a "state party" known as the Palestinians. The two elements of the irregular Palestinian contribution to the conflict (The Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army --- had been engaged since the UN adoption of G/RES/181 in November 1947) no longer exist, and they were not "state parties" to the conflict. "The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and Jordanian-Iraqi forces, also known as the Green Line."

Israel is not the only country that demands recognition as a pre-requisite to peace negotiations. All countries that engage in treaty negotiations of ANY KIND must mutually recognize the other as a "state" (those sovereign states that have the ability to ratified) pursuant to Article 6 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; which establishes the capacity to enter into an agreement.

A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers. If it is occupied or otherwise not able to govern itself independently, then there is a question of "capacity." There is an argument to be made that a territory under occupation not true capable to govern itself. This argument may apply to the West Bank, but not necessarily to the Gaza Strip.

II. APPLICATION OF THE LO DE JURE TO UN ADMINISTRATION
The Hague Regulation Article 42’s core threshold for an occupation – “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army [and the] occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised” – has been generally understood by States, courts, and scholars as suggesting that occupation begins and lasts as long as three criteria are met:

(1) foreign forces are physically present in the territory of a State without its consent;
(2) the authorities of the latter State lack the capacity to exercise authority in the territory; and
(3) the foreign forces have the capacity to exercise authority over the territory.
​

I hope this answers your questions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

A link to what doesn't exist?

You suffer from Shaken Baby Syndrome, right?

Do you believe that the Supreme Court of Israel is telling lies then when they say that Israel a "belligerent occupier"?

Are you aware that Israel does not occupy Gaza'istan or the West Bank?

Have you sought treatment for your condition?

I am aware that Israel does not occupy any of Gaza... Simply maintains control over air, land and sea.

Israel occupies WB, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem...

Irrefutable facts that everyone seems to accept, including Supreme Court of Israel...

Israel controls portions of the West Bank as do the islamics. You have no issue with islamist occupation.

Golan was seized as result of a failed war of aggression by Islamics.

Since when is East Jerusalem an Islamist waqf?

Israel gave the waqf permission to care for the mosque and religious builds on the mount, and the King of Jordan is the protector of the mosque and he determines what happens there. Most of the construction and digging was not authorized and repairs of the wall have been delayed because the waqf won't let Israel shore up the wall under al aqsa were the wall is weakening. The threat of collapse is not just a danger to those below but the mosque itself could be damaged or destroyed.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't disagree, entirely.

The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else.​

Military control (occupation) is quite different than the right to sovereignty.

That is why it is says the the people have the right to self determination without external interference.

You always miss that point. Always, always, always!

(COMMENT)

I never miss that point. I always include the element of "containment." Why??? Because the Palestinian People are a threat to regional peace and security without the element of containment.

There are only to types of conflicts.

• International and
• Non-international

There are twos ways to argue this:

1) If the conflict is not international, then it is "non-international." There is no "occupation" in a "non-international" conflict because there is no "foreign army." If it is a "foreign army," then there is an international component. Foreign Force --- over --- Foreign Territory

2) You are always invoking the:

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

These three element are part of PROTOCOL I (International Armed Conflicts).

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.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
Material field of application

• 
  Article 1 [ Link ] -- Material field of application
  
  1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 [ Link ] common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 [ Link ] of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
  
  2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.

I don't care which side you pick, just stick to one side. There are advantages and disadvantages to both applications. You generally open with issues that are "international in their complexions. But you cannot choose those central themes if you are going to claim it is a non-international conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Are you aware that Israel does not occupy Gaza'istan or the West Bank?

Have you sought treatment for your condition?

I am aware that Israel does not occupy any of Gaza... Simply maintains control over air, land and sea.

Israel occupies WB, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem...

Irrefutable facts that everyone seems to accept, including Supreme Court of Israel...

Israel controls portions of the West Bank as do the islamics. You have no issue with islamist occupation.

Golan was seized as result of a failed war of aggression by Islamics.

Since when is East Jerusalem an Islamist waqf?

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

syria withdrew from the golan during the war. UN has a buffer zone between syria and Israel. Israel went as far as the outskirts of Damascus and did not keep all that land. The highland is their protection zone. If Israel has really wanted they could have taken Damascus and much more, but they left that for syria.
Israel did not keep southern Lebanon but handed that back each time.
In an agreement with Egypt they returned the sinai as part of a peace deal. Israel had gone as far as the canal and nearly to cairo. If Israel was really this land gab demon, why aren't they in at least half or what we know of as syria, lebanon and still in the sinai?
Israel still control area c of the WB. the other two have been turned over the to PA. Israel withdrew from gaza.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I already gave you the link. But, I'll do it again.

It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).​

(LINK)

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel:

Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.

5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.

6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).

7. The Parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.

8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Naharayim/Baqura area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agreed to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).

9. With respect to the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.
​

v/r
R

 

[Humanity]

I am aware that Israel does not occupy any of Gaza... Simply maintains control over air, land and sea.

Israel occupies WB, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem...

Irrefutable facts that everyone seems to accept, including Supreme Court of Israel...

Israel controls portions of the West Bank as do the islamics. You have no issue with islamist occupation.

Golan was seized as result of a failed war of aggression by Islamics.

Since when is East Jerusalem an Islamist waqf?

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

syria withdrew from the golan during the war. UN has a buffer zone between syria and Israel. Israel went as far as the outskirts of Damascus and did not keep all that land. The highland is their protection zone. If Israel has really wanted they could have taken Damascus and much more, but they left that for syria.
Israel did not keep southern Lebanon but handed that back each time.
In an agreement with Egypt they returned the sinai as part of a peace deal. Israel had gone as far as the canal and nearly to cairo. If Israel was really this land gab demon, why aren't they in at least half or what we know of as syria, lebanon and still in the sinai?
Israel still control area c of the WB. the other two have been turned over the to PA. Israel withdrew from gaza.

Yes, so Israel is occupying territory that doesn't belong to them...

Thanks for the confirmation...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't disagree, entirely.

The Palestinians have a very questionable defined territory. I am not sure they actually have a border control point that is not managed by someone else.​

Military control (occupation) is quite different than the right to sovereignty.

That is why it is says the the people have the right to self determination without external interference.

You always miss that point. Always, always, always!

(COMMENT)

I never miss that point. I always include the element of "containment." Why??? Because the Palestinian People are a threat to regional peace and security without the element of containment.

There are only to types of conflicts.

• International and
• Non-international

There are twos ways to argue this:

1) If the conflict is not international, then it is "non-international." There is no "occupation" in a "non-international" conflict because there is no "foreign army." If it is a "foreign army," then there is an international component. Foreign Force --- over --- Foreign Territory

2) You are always invoking the:

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

These three element are part of PROTOCOL I (International Armed Conflicts).

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.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
Material field of application

• 
  Article 1 [ Link ] -- Material field of application
  
  1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 [ Link ] common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 [ Link ] of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
  
  2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.

I don't care which side you pick, just stick to one side. There are advantages and disadvantages to both applications. You generally open with issues that are "international in their complexions. But you cannot choose those central themes if you are going to claim it is a non-international conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I already gave you the link. But, I'll do it again.

It seems that the entirety of the West Bank, by Treaty, is inside the "international boundary" of Israel (although I'm not sure Israel actually wants it).​

(LINK)

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel:

Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.

5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.

6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).

7. The Parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.

8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Naharayim/Baqura area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agreed to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).

9. With respect to the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.
​

v/r
R

Indeed, Israel trying to back door borders on land that it has never legally acquired.

 

[montelatici]

Hamas is training 25,000 new fighters in gaza

Their way of planning for peace????

"Si vis pacem, para bellum".

Then why is the arab world so afraid that Israel might have a nuclear weapon?
Why do they object to Israel arming and controlling it's border and building fences and wall?
Why object to Israel controlling the 'free' flow of weapons into gaza?

they too are prepared if gaza attacks again

Gaza does not have the right to form it's own army. Any authorization for that would come from the PA.

Please don't give me that nonsense of gaza be voted to government. They were voted for seats in parliament, not to unilaterally take actions of military force or triggering a war with Israel. Gaza was taken by force.
Hamas' actions should have nullified any participation in parliament.
PLO renounced terrorism in 1988. Hamas is viewed as a terrorist group even by the PLO and is not a member.
Hamas does not have the right to act without parliaments approval.

Gaza does not have the legal authority to 'prepare for war'. They should not be armed at all.
It does not have a right to act on it's own at all

1. Then why is the arab world so afraid that Israel might have a nuclear weapon?

You have to ask that question? The Israelis came from Europe, invaded Palestine and evicted most of the non-Jews. What's to keep them from taking over more territory now that they have effectively taken over or control all of the historical mandate Palestine? With the nuclear bomb Israel blackmails the rest of the world in letting them do what they want to non-Jews. The Israelis have not only the Arabs and Muslims with nukes, but the world as a whole.

"The Samson Option – taking out Israel's enemies with it, possibly causing irreparable damage to the entire world – has been floated by Israeli strategists including Ariel Sharon, as a last-ditch option if Israel faces annihilation."

Letter-poem to Grass If We Go Everyone Goes - Jewish World - News - Arutz Sheva

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hamas is training 25,000 new fighters in gaza

Their way of planning for peace????

Dunno, but that should keep 50 Israeli soldiers busy for a week, should war break out...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Israels long term agenda is the end of a Palestine area, so why should any Palestinian consider serious agreements with Israel?

Yeah, Israel said they would "drive the Muzzie Beasts into the sea."

Oh wait.....

 

[Roudy]

Israel controls portions of the West Bank as do the islamics. You have no issue with islamist occupation.

Golan was seized as result of a failed war of aggression by Islamics.

Since when is East Jerusalem an Islamist waqf?

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

syria withdrew from the golan during the war. UN has a buffer zone between syria and Israel. Israel went as far as the outskirts of Damascus and did not keep all that land. The highland is their protection zone. If Israel has really wanted they could have taken Damascus and much more, but they left that for syria.
Israel did not keep southern Lebanon but handed that back each time.
In an agreement with Egypt they returned the sinai as part of a peace deal. Israel had gone as far as the canal and nearly to cairo. If Israel was really this land gab demon, why aren't they in at least half or what we know of as syria, lebanon and still in the sinai?
Israel still control area c of the WB. the other two have been turned over the to PA. Israel withdrew from gaza.

Yes, so Israel is occupying territory that doesn't belong to them...

Thanks for the confirmation...

So who's territory is Israel "occupying"? The British or the Ottomans? LOL

 

[montelatici]

Israels long term agenda is the end of a Palestine area, so why should any Palestinian consider serious agreements with Israel?

Yeah, Israel said they would "drive the Muzzie Beasts into the sea."

Oh wait.....

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

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Read it again!!!!

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.​

Thank you for proving my point.

(COMMENT)

It applies to an International Conflict --- and NOT a non-international conflict.

It counters your point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Read it again!!!!

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.​

Thank you for proving my point.

(COMMENT)

It applies to an International Conflict --- and NOT a non-international conflict.

It counters your point.

Most Respectfully,
R

How so?

 

[Humanity]

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

syria withdrew from the golan during the war. UN has a buffer zone between syria and Israel. Israel went as far as the outskirts of Damascus and did not keep all that land. The highland is their protection zone. If Israel has really wanted they could have taken Damascus and much more, but they left that for syria.
Israel did not keep southern Lebanon but handed that back each time.
In an agreement with Egypt they returned the sinai as part of a peace deal. Israel had gone as far as the canal and nearly to cairo. If Israel was really this land gab demon, why aren't they in at least half or what we know of as syria, lebanon and still in the sinai?
Israel still control area c of the WB. the other two have been turned over the to PA. Israel withdrew from gaza.

Yes, so Israel is occupying territory that doesn't belong to them...

Thanks for the confirmation...

So who's territory is Israel "occupying"? The British or the Ottomans? LOL

NOT ISRAEL'S... Thats for sure!

Unless you want to argue with the rest of the world, ICJ, UN, Supreme Court of Israel...

End up looking like one of your comrades... A beaten, broken mess because they tried to argue against a wall of fact!

 

[Hollie]

Israel controls portions of the West Bank as do the islamics. You have no issue with islamist occupation.

Golan was seized as result of a failed war of aggression by Islamics.

Since when is East Jerusalem an Islamist waqf?

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

syria withdrew from the golan during the war. UN has a buffer zone between syria and Israel. Israel went as far as the outskirts of Damascus and did not keep all that land. The highland is their protection zone. If Israel has really wanted they could have taken Damascus and much more, but they left that for syria.
Israel did not keep southern Lebanon but handed that back each time.
In an agreement with Egypt they returned the sinai as part of a peace deal. Israel had gone as far as the canal and nearly to cairo. If Israel was really this land gab demon, why aren't they in at least half or what we know of as syria, lebanon and still in the sinai?
Israel still control area c of the WB. the other two have been turned over the to PA. Israel withdrew from gaza.

Yes, so Israel is occupying territory that doesn't belong to them...

Thanks for the confirmation...

Israel controls the area as a buffer zone between themselves and the barbarians.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are you aware that Israel does not occupy Gaza'istan or the West Bank?

Then who's preventing humanitarian ships from entering Gaza and who's running the almost 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank?

You are one sick puppy!