Hamas breaks ceasefire as rockets explode near Be'er Sheva

[Phoenall]

Hossfly, Billo_Really, aris2chat, et al,

This is not totally unexpected. This is the general attempt to mitigate "command responsibility" by establishing in advance of an investigation, that the Senior Leadership had no prior knowledge of the event. It is a perfectly good and proper legal strategy and posture to assume.

Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal admits that Hamas members killed three Israeli teens in the West Bank in June, though he says the leadership of the organization was not made aware of the details of the abduction plan in advance.

In an interview with Michael Isikoff for Yahoo News in Doha, the Qatari capital, Mashaal says that the leadership of Hamas learned of the details of the killings of the three students, Naftali Fraenkel, Gil-ad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach, from the Israeli investigation into them.

“We were not aware of this action taken by this group of Hamas members in advance,” he says. “But we understand people are frustrated under the occupation and the oppression, and they take all kinds of action.”

Billo, the Hamas sent a high ranking member to a conference in Turkey and he bragged about the killings. He wasn't lying, he is a spokesman for Hamas, the interpretation was not phony and we are getting tired of your tribe denying everything they do and say when it comes to terror.

(COMMENT)

Remember, that much of the old regime leadership of HAMAS is in exile either in Qatar or Turkey. There is not real law to pursue HAMAS once outside the immediate region of conflict.

The HAMAS Leadership actually violates Article 4 of the EU Framework for Combating Terrorism, in that they operated to incite, aid and abet, terrorist activity (both before and after the fact); but, under the Rome Statutes, there is really some difficulty in charging the leadership in HAMAS. While HAMAS (a hardline Palestinian Sunni Islamic Jihadist group) can be described as having a grave indifference to the criminal activity of its subordinate elements (eg Al-Aqsa Brigades and al-Qassam Brigades) or its cohorts (eg Palestinian Islamic Jihad), it is setting the stage of separation. You will notice that in recent days, the Hamas Political Chief Khaled Mashaal made a special effort to distance himself from Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), another hardline Sunni Islamic Jihadist group with the intentions of establishing a new state.

You should also notice that HAMAS did not forget the lessons from Hollywood Crime Dramas; leave no witnesses. Currently, all the IDF informants or suspected informants, are being neutralized. None of this is really in the frame for international prosecution.

Most Respectfully,
R

HAMAS are doing exactly what any national liberation movement has done over the past few centuries. The ANC bombed shopping centers and was far more deadly to the whites in South Africa than anything HAMAS has done. The ANC leader, Mandela, is revered around the world. Cut your BS Rocco.

He is hated around the world bah all those who have faced terrorism, even his own people hate him for what he did to South Africa and want white rule back with its laws. The world likewise views hamas as no better than the ANC, in fact it sees both groups as child murdering scum and racists. Just like all nations that fall to terrorist groups S.A. has seen a sharp rise in violent crime and more blacks have been murdered by other blacks in this year than were killed during the many years of white rule. The gazan Christians have been all but wiped out by hamas, and the deaths at the hands of hamas "execution" squads is greater than the deaths of children by Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

Hossfly, Billo_Really, aris2chat, et al,

This is not totally unexpected. This is the general attempt to mitigate "command responsibility" by establishing in advance of an investigation, that the Senior Leadership had no prior knowledge of the event. It is a perfectly good and proper legal strategy and posture to assume.

Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal admits that Hamas members killed three Israeli teens in the West Bank in June, though he says the leadership of the organization was not made aware of the details of the abduction plan in advance.

In an interview with Michael Isikoff for Yahoo News in Doha, the Qatari capital, Mashaal says that the leadership of Hamas learned of the details of the killings of the three students, Naftali Fraenkel, Gil-ad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach, from the Israeli investigation into them.

“We were not aware of this action taken by this group of Hamas members in advance,” he says. “But we understand people are frustrated under the occupation and the oppression, and they take all kinds of action.”

Billo, the Hamas sent a high ranking member to a conference in Turkey and he bragged about the killings. He wasn't lying, he is a spokesman for Hamas, the interpretation was not phony and we are getting tired of your tribe denying everything they do and say when it comes to terror.

(COMMENT)

Remember, that much of the old regime leadership of HAMAS is in exile either in Qatar or Turkey. There is not real law to pursue HAMAS once outside the immediate region of conflict.

The HAMAS Leadership actually violates Article 4 of the EU Framework for Combating Terrorism, in that they operated to incite, aid and abet, terrorist activity (both before and after the fact); but, under the Rome Statutes, there is really some difficulty in charging the leadership in HAMAS. While HAMAS (a hardline Palestinian Sunni Islamic Jihadist group) can be described as having a grave indifference to the criminal activity of its subordinate elements (eg Al-Aqsa Brigades and al-Qassam Brigades) or its cohorts (eg Palestinian Islamic Jihad), it is setting the stage of separation. You will notice that in recent days, the Hamas Political Chief Khaled Mashaal made a special effort to distance himself from Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), another hardline Sunni Islamic Jihadist group with the intentions of establishing a new state.

You should also notice that HAMAS did not forget the lessons from Hollywood Crime Dramas; leave no witnesses. Currently, all the IDF informants or suspected informants, are being neutralized. None of this is really in the frame for international prosecution.

Most Respectfully,
R

HAMAS are doing exactly what any national liberation movement has done over the past few centuries. The ANC bombed shopping centers and was far more deadly to the whites in South Africa than anything HAMAS has done. The ANC leader, Mandela, is revered around the world. Cut your BS Rocco.

How many unarmed people Hamas killed over the years?

Many tens of thousands both inside gaza and outside.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is what we call the: Pontius Pilate Clause.

From your link:

(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan.

(COMMENT)

The UK wanted to wash their hands completely of the Mandate. And if they could have severed all ties and just walked away, they would have done just that (I have no doubt of that). Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. As the UK was, for all intent and purposes, the Government over the Mandate, it incurred some entanglements which need to be legally transferred to the State of Israel. Some of these issues were General Consular Issues (like Pass Ports and citizenship), some were financial (as in state debts, contracts and obligations), and some were property transfer issues (Consular Stations, Depots, Barrack, Building and Structures). There were a whole host of things that the UK just could not walk away from.

The intention of the Pontius Pilate Clause was to impress, in diplomatic language, that the UK was not going to provide material support in way to the establishment of the State of Israel which was optional (that which they did not actually have an obligation to provide). Remembering that the UK had other vested interests in the Middle East and Persian Gulf that were Arab dependent, and did not want to create adverse conditions relative to those other vital interests; inadvertently triggering a vindictive response elsewhere in the Arab World in which they operated.

As I said before: "what the UK knew and participated in is a matter of record." They knew everything, and they resisted, to the extent possible, overt involvement. But they were there through the entire process. But what they said openly and what they did practically, are a product of differing motivational factors.

Most Respectfully,
R

As the UK was, for all intent and purposes, the Government over the Mandate, it incurred some entanglements which need to be legally transferred to the State of Israel.

I can find where Britain was to transfer the responsibility of Palestine to the UNPC. I can't find where the UNPC took the responsibility to secure the territory or to protect the people in its trust.

Of most importance, however, is that I cannot find where either the mandate or the UNPC transferred anything, particularly land, to Israel.

You can go on questioning again and again testing -mostly- Rocco's patience with how legal is this and that, but remember that the Palestinians have zero grip in this ground at all, for example the UNPC made any comment about the Palestinians? Did the UNPC transferred anything to the Palestinians? Ask your own questions about the Palestinians everytime you make those questions.

Hmmm, did someone transfer Lebanon to the Lebanese? Did someone transfer Syria to the Syrians? Did someone transfer Jordan to the Jordanians?

We need to look into these things.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is what we call the: Pontius Pilate Clause.

From your link:

(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan.

(COMMENT)

The UK wanted to wash their hands completely of the Mandate. And if they could have severed all ties and just walked away, they would have done just that (I have no doubt of that). Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. As the UK was, for all intent and purposes, the Government over the Mandate, it incurred some entanglements which need to be legally transferred to the State of Israel. Some of these issues were General Consular Issues (like Pass Ports and citizenship), some were financial (as in state debts, contracts and obligations), and some were property transfer issues (Consular Stations, Depots, Barrack, Building and Structures). There were a whole host of things that the UK just could not walk away from.

The intention of the Pontius Pilate Clause was to impress, in diplomatic language, that the UK was not going to provide material support in way to the establishment of the State of Israel which was optional (that which they did not actually have an obligation to provide). Remembering that the UK had other vested interests in the Middle East and Persian Gulf that were Arab dependent, and did not want to create adverse conditions relative to those other vital interests; inadvertently triggering a vindictive response elsewhere in the Arab World in which they operated.

As I said before: "what the UK knew and participated in is a matter of record." They knew everything, and they resisted, to the extent possible, overt involvement. But they were there through the entire process. But what they said openly and what they did practically, are a product of differing motivational factors.

Most Respectfully,
R

As the UK was, for all intent and purposes, the Government over the Mandate, it incurred some entanglements which need to be legally transferred to the State of Israel.

I can find where Britain was to transfer the responsibility of Palestine to the UNPC. I can't find where the UNPC took the responsibility to secure the territory or to protect the people in its trust.

Of most importance, however, is that I cannot find where either the mandate or the UNPC transferred anything, particularly land, to Israel.

You can go on questioning again and again testing -mostly- Rocco's patience with how legal is this and that, but remember that the Palestinians have zero grip in this ground at all, for example the UNPC made any comment about the Palestinians? Did the UNPC transferred anything to the Palestinians? Ask your own questions about the Palestinians everytime you make those questions.

Hmmm, did someone transfer Lebanon to the Lebanese? Did someone transfer Syria to the Syrians? Did someone transfer Jordan to the Jordanians?

We need to look into these things.

Yes the LoN under the various mandates that had this as part of their remit. When the LoN amalgamated in 1945 with the newly formed UN this was transferred over to UN acceptance. That is were you are confused as the land was transferred once the LoN / UN was happy that the nation was capable of the tasks set before them. This is why Palestine has not been accepted as a full member of the UN because it is not capable of being a nation with all that it entails.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a matter of "self-determination" and not a real estate deal. There is no "transfer" of power or real estate; not for Israel or any other of the Arab States (for that matter). None of the Middle East States has a deed to their sovereign territory. That is simply not how it works.

I can find where Britain was to transfer the responsibility of Palestine to the UNPC. I can't find where the UNPC took the responsibility to secure the territory or to protect the people in its trust.

Of most importance, however, is that I cannot find where either the mandate or the UNPC transferred anything, particularly land, to Israel.

(COMMENT)

The,

• Mandate Ended.
• Israel Declared Independence.
• The Arab League Forces invaded as the hostile external interference.
• The UNPC retired.
• Armistice was established.
  • The Jews had Israel.
  • The Jordanians had the West Bank.
  • The Egyptians had the Gaza Strip.

It is really quite that simple.

The Arab Palestinian are greedy. What they wanted then, essentially what they demand now, is the same --- another all Arab fiefdom. They want to roll back the clock and deny the Jewish People their right to self - determination. The Greedy Arab Palestinians (GAP) want: (HAMAS 2013 Position Paper)(alla Khaled Meshal)

Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

The Palestinian are a people that has yet to integrate peaceful concepts into its culture. Like adolescents fighting over toys, they insist that they are superior in rights and demand that which they have determined is theirs by this superior right.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a matter of "self-determination" and not a real estate deal. There is no "transfer" of power or real estate; not for Israel or any other of the Arab States (for that matter). None of the Middle East States has a deed to their sovereign territory. That is simply not how it works.

I can find where Britain was to transfer the responsibility of Palestine to the UNPC. I can't find where the UNPC took the responsibility to secure the territory or to protect the people in its trust.

Of most importance, however, is that I cannot find where either the mandate or the UNPC transferred anything, particularly land, to Israel.

(COMMENT)

The,

• Mandate Ended.
• Israel Declared Independence.
• The Arab League Forces invaded as the hostile external interference.
• The UNPC retired.
• Armistice was established.
  • The Jews had Israel.
  • The Jordanians had the West Bank.
  • The Egyptians had the Gaza Strip.

It is really quite that simple.

The Arab Palestinian are greedy. What they wanted then, essentially what they demand now, is the same --- another all Arab fiefdom. They want to roll back the clock and deny the Jewish People their right to self - determination. The Greedy Arab Palestinians (GAP) want: (HAMAS 2013 Position Paper)(alla Khaled Meshal)

Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

The Palestinian are a people that has yet to integrate peaceful concepts into its culture. Like adolescents fighting over toys, they insist that they are superior in rights and demand that which they have determined is theirs by this superior right.

Most Respectfully,
R

Time for Tinmore to pull yet another superseded or debunked document out of his ass.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a matter of "self-determination" and not a real estate deal. There is no "transfer" of power or real estate; not for Israel or any other of the Arab States (for that matter). None of the Middle East States has a deed to their sovereign territory. That is simply not how it works.

I can find where Britain was to transfer the responsibility of Palestine to the UNPC. I can't find where the UNPC took the responsibility to secure the territory or to protect the people in its trust.

Of most importance, however, is that I cannot find where either the mandate or the UNPC transferred anything, particularly land, to Israel.

(COMMENT)

The,

• Mandate Ended.
• Israel Declared Independence.
• The Arab League Forces invaded as the hostile external interference.
• The UNPC retired.
• Armistice was established.
  • The Jews had Israel.
  • The Jordanians had the West Bank.
  • The Egyptians had the Gaza Strip.

It is really quite that simple.

The Arab Palestinian are greedy. What they wanted then, essentially what they demand now, is the same --- another all Arab fiefdom. They want to roll back the clock and deny the Jewish People their right to self - determination. The Greedy Arab Palestinians (GAP) want: (HAMAS 2013 Position Paper)(alla Khaled Meshal)

Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

The Palestinian are a people that has yet to integrate peaceful concepts into its culture. Like adolescents fighting over toys, they insist that they are superior in rights and demand that which they have determined is theirs by this superior right.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of your post relates to mine?

 

[docmauser1]

Hmmm, did someone transfer Lebanon to the Lebanese? Did someone transfer Syria to the Syrians? Did someone transfer Jordan to the Jordanians? We need to look into these things.

We don't care - they don't have borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of your post relates to mine?

(COMMENT)

You are trying to imply that a "transfer" of some sort is required to legitimize Israel.

I say there is not. Transfers are related to real estate transactions, not sovereignty actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All of it.

What part of your post relates to mine?

(COMMENT)

You are trying to imply that a "transfer" of some sort is required to legitimize Israel.

I say there is not. Transfers are related to real estate transactions, not sovereignty actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so what do you call it when a country acquires land.? What procedures must be followed?

 

[aris2chat]

>>P F Tinmore said: ↑
Hmmm, did someone transfer Lebanon to the Lebanese? Did someone transfer Syria to the Syrians? Did someone transfer Jordan to the Jordanians? We need to look into these things.<<

Actually the LoN and later the UN gave England and France the authority to create states. Lebanon was semi-autonomous under the Ottomans, so their formation was already expected. It was a lebanese that wrote the UN human rights declaration.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In the last two millennia of recorded history, we have seen all sorts of changes in national boundaries. It has only been in the last tenth of that record (actually less) that the concept that of territorial acquisition by military expedition has been delegitimized.

Each acquisition has its own history. And, indeed, some were actually real estate transaction (eg Alaska, Louisiana Purchases), some were post-War reparations (eg The Philippine Islands), some were annexation by resolution (eg Republics of Hawaii and Texas). There is not just one way for a sovereignty to grow, but a multitude of ways.

OK, so what do you call it when a country acquires land.? What procedures must be followed?

(COMMENT)

Rather than discuss all the ways it becomes possible to be recognized as independent, let's focus on the Mandate of Palestine. As you are aware, the Mandate of Palestine included a portion known as Trans-Jordan. On 22 March 1946, the Emir Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty; and it was Article I of this Treaty wherein the HM King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, openly recognizes Jordan.

Article I
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.

144 United Nations -Treaty Series 1947
No. 74. TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. SIGNED AT LONDON,
ON 22 MARCH 1946​

This is called Independence by decree and treaty. And it was on this basis that the United Nations approved the end of the British Mandate and recognized Transjordan as an independent sovereign kingdom.

Relative to the remainder of the Mandate, the UN outlined the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" In Resolution 181(II).

I hope this answered your question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In the last two millennia of recorded history, we have seen all sorts of changes in national boundaries. It has only been in the last tenth of that record (actually less) that the concept that of territorial acquisition by military expedition has been delegitimized.

Each acquisition has its own history. And, indeed, some were actually real estate transaction (eg Alaska, Louisiana Purchases), some were post-War reparations (eg The Philippine Islands), some were annexation by resolution (eg Republics of Hawaii and Texas). There is not just one way for a sovereignty to grow, but a multitude of ways.

OK, so what do you call it when a country acquires land.? What procedures must be followed?

(COMMENT)

Rather than discuss all the ways it becomes possible to be recognized as independent, let's focus on the Mandate of Palestine. As you are aware, the Mandate of Palestine included a portion known as Trans-Jordan. On 22 March 1946, the Emir Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty; and it was Article I of this Treaty wherein the HM King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, openly recognizes Jordan.

Article I
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.

144 United Nations -Treaty Series 1947
No. 74. TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. SIGNED AT LONDON,
ON 22 MARCH 1946​

This is called Independence by decree and treaty. And it was on this basis that the United Nations approved the end of the British Mandate and recognized Transjordan as an independent sovereign kingdom.

Relative to the remainder of the Mandate, the UN outlined the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" In Resolution 181(II).

I hope this answered your question.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transjordan gained independence on whose land?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In the last two millennia of recorded history, we have seen all sorts of changes in national boundaries. It has only been in the last tenth of that record (actually less) that the concept that of territorial acquisition by military expedition has been delegitimized.

Each acquisition has its own history. And, indeed, some were actually real estate transaction (eg Alaska, Louisiana Purchases), some were post-War reparations (eg The Philippine Islands), some were annexation by resolution (eg Republics of Hawaii and Texas). There is not just one way for a sovereignty to grow, but a multitude of ways.

OK, so what do you call it when a country acquires land.? What procedures must be followed?

(COMMENT)

Rather than discuss all the ways it becomes possible to be recognized as independent, let's focus on the Mandate of Palestine. As you are aware, the Mandate of Palestine included a portion known as Trans-Jordan. On 22 March 1946, the Emir Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty; and it was Article I of this Treaty wherein the HM King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, openly recognizes Jordan.

Article I
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.

144 United Nations -Treaty Series 1947
No. 74. TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. SIGNED AT LONDON,
ON 22 MARCH 1946​

This is called Independence by decree and treaty. And it was on this basis that the United Nations approved the end of the British Mandate and recognized Transjordan as an independent sovereign kingdom.

Relative to the remainder of the Mandate, the UN outlined the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" In Resolution 181(II).

I hope this answered your question.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transjordan gained independence on whose land?

Austronesian land.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

"Whose land" ---- is the wrong question. "Whose land" is an implied ownership issue. Sovereignty has, as a general rule, no impact on land ownership ("Whose Land)." Sovereignty has an bearing on governance and territorial rule.

Transjordan gained independence on whose land?

(COMMENT)

The territory, formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire and detached from Turkey by treaty and relinquished to the Allied Powers, (from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia) as sectioned by the Syke-Picot Agreement, and placed under the Mandate of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

"Whose land" ---- is the wrong question. "Whose land" is an implied ownership issue. Sovereignty has, as a general rule, no impact on land ownership ("Whose Land)." Sovereignty has an bearing on governance and territorial rule.

Transjordan gained independence on whose land?

(COMMENT)

The territory, formerly under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire and detached from Turkey by treaty and relinquished to the Allied Powers, (from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia) as sectioned by the Syke-Picot Agreement, and placed under the Mandate of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the facts are:

The land of Palestine was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

As a nation of people in a defined territory they have inalienable rights including territorial integrity.

The principle of territorial integrity is reiterated in two other laws:

It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

It is illegal to annex land that you have under occupation.

So, how did Israel acquire the land that it claims?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Partial Credit.

OK, but the facts are:
The land of Palestine was defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

Not entirely accurate. The Territory for the Mandate of Palestine was determined by (thus changeable by) the Allied Powers.

OK, but the facts are:

The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The citizenship and nationality of the population was established by the Allied Powers under the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Law of 1925 codified by the Allied Powers.

OK, but the facts are:

As a nation of people in a defined territory they have inalienable rights including territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The responsibility for the territorial integrity of the Mandate for Palestine rests with the Mandatory and the Allied Powers. There was no nation of Palestine, therefore, there were right to territorial integrity other than that stipulated in the Mandate.

OK, but the facts are:

The principle of territorial integrity is reiterated in two other laws:

• It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
• It is illegal to annex land that you have under occupation.

(COMMENT)

First --- the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter) refers to acts of aggression for the purpose of expansion. It actually protects the State of Israel from acts of aggression to overturn the right of self-determination and the integrity of the Jewish States as established under UN guidance. It has no impact at all on the Territory under Mandate as the Mandatory was responsible for maintaining the territorial integrity of the territory under LoN/UN guidance.

Article 47 of the Geneva Convention prohibits an Occupation Power from any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (TRUE) Neither the West Bank or the Gaza Strip were annexed.

This prohibition is to preclude the Occupation Power from coercing the population of the occupied territory from forfeiting their rights to self-determination. It is the genesis of the "external interference" clause.

So, how did Israel acquire the land that it claims?

(COMMENT)


All the conditions, laws and values you point out owe their origins to the Allied Powers. Israel exercised their right to self-determination through the processes approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as outlined in the Resolution 181(II).

It did not "acquire the land" --- but declared independence and sovereignty.

Sovereign control on territory over and above the original Resolution 181(II) apportionment, was as a result of successes in the active defense of Israel; in which Israeli Defense Forces push the Forward Edge of the Battles forward in order to maintain contact and tactical advantage over Arab Aggressors.

(EPILOG)

The Middle East is not a sports arena, and the War Environment is not a game. You do not have an umpire that can call for an instant replay, stop motion, or reset the clock. There are no do-overs --- or --- the ability to replay the down.

The expectations of Resolution 181(II) was not completely and thoroughly achieved because of the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League Armies used of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of the newly formed State of Israel, in a manner inconsistent with the intentions of the UN; as expressed in the Resolution. This lead to a series of wars and conflicts in which the aggressor nations of the Arab League, in conjunction with the unconventional forces of the Arab Palestinian, lost the effective control over successively more and more territory originally apportioned to the other half of the two-state solution (The Arab State).

Today, we see the two faces of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). We see them --- on the one hand argue that Israel attempted to use force in the acquisition of land and how terrible that is. On the other, we see the HoAP argue that they have the right to use any force, and tactic, even in violation of customary humanitarian law, in order to achieve a hold (through the use of force --- Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine) on "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Partial Credit.

OK, but the facts are:
The land of Palestine was defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

Not entirely accurate. The Territory for the Mandate of Palestine was determined by (thus changeable by) the Allied Powers.

OK, but the facts are:

The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The citizenship and nationality of the population was established by the Allied Powers under the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Law of 1925 codified by the Allied Powers.

OK, but the facts are:

As a nation of people in a defined territory they have inalienable rights including territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The responsibility for the territorial integrity of the Mandate for Palestine rests with the Mandatory and the Allied Powers. There was no nation of Palestine, therefore, there were right to territorial integrity other than that stipulated in the Mandate.

OK, but the facts are:

The principle of territorial integrity is reiterated in two other laws:

• It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
• It is illegal to annex land that you have under occupation.

(COMMENT)

First --- the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter) refers to acts of aggression for the purpose of expansion. It actually protects the State of Israel from acts of aggression to overturn the right of self-determination and the integrity of the Jewish States as established under UN guidance. It has no impact at all on the Territory under Mandate as the Mandatory was responsible for maintaining the territorial integrity of the territory under LoN/UN guidance.

Article 47 of the Geneva Convention prohibits an Occupation Power from any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (TRUE) Neither the West Bank or the Gaza Strip were annexed.

This prohibition is to preclude the Occupation Power from coercing the population of the occupied territory from forfeiting their rights to self-determination. It is the genesis of the "external interference" clause.

So, how did Israel acquire the land that it claims?

(COMMENT)


All the conditions, laws and values you point out owe their origins to the Allied Powers. Israel exercised their right to self-determination through the processes approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as outlined in the Resolution 181(II).

It did not "acquire the land" --- but declared independence and sovereignty.

Sovereign control on territory over and above the original Resolution 181(II) apportionment, was as a result of successes in the active defense of Israel; in which Israeli Defense Forces push the Forward Edge of the Battles forward in order to maintain contact and tactical advantage over Arab Aggressors.

(EPILOG)

The Middle East is not a sports arena, and the War Environment is not a game. You do not have an umpire that can call for an instant replay, stop motion, or reset the clock. There are no do-overs --- or --- the ability to replay the down.

The expectations of Resolution 181(II) was not completely and thoroughly achieved because of the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League Armies used of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of the newly formed State of Israel, in a manner inconsistent with the intentions of the UN; as expressed in the Resolution. This lead to a series of wars and conflicts in which the aggressor nations of the Arab League, in conjunction with the unconventional forces of the Arab Palestinian, lost the effective control over successively more and more territory originally apportioned to the other half of the two-state solution (The Arab State).

Today, we see the two faces of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). We see them --- on the one hand argue that Israel attempted to use force in the acquisition of land and how terrible that is. On the other, we see the HoAP argue that they have the right to use any force, and tactic, even in violation of customary humanitarian law, in order to achieve a hold (through the use of force --- Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine) on "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south."

Most Respectfully,
R

Not entirely accurate. The Territory for the Mandate of Palestine was determined by (thus changeable by) the Allied Powers.

Not true. The mandate had no territory. Palestine was held in trust by the Mandate until the people could stand alone.

Your post is based on false premise.

Try again.

 

[docmauser1]

Not true. The mandate had no territory. Palestine was held in trust by the Mandate until the people could stand alone. Your post is based on false premise. Try again.

So, palestine had no territory. Not bad at all.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just trying to mix words here now, because you have no rebuttal.

Not entirely accurate. The Territory for the Mandate of Palestine was determined by (thus changeable by) the Allied Powers.

Not true. The mandate had no territory. Palestine was held in trust by the Mandate until the people could stand alone.

Your post is based on false premise.

Try again.

(COMMENT)

There is no false premise, merely your interpretation.

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.
Title.
1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Each Mandate is territorially specific and they are referred to as "Mandated Territories." "The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances."

"The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council." "The nations upon which such powers of guardianship are conferred exercise them "as Mandatories on behalf of the League". In other words, the administration of these territories is delegated to them. This involves an obligation on their part to render account of their administration to the League of Nations."
(LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945)​

Again, there is no false premise. You are merely trying to assign some type of authority over the territory to the Arab Palestinians. It won't work. The Palestinians had no effective control or government either before or after the Mandate was assigned.

"Such are the main characteristics of the mandates system. But although the principle is uniform, it is applied in a variety of ways. It will be appreciated that the definition "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves" covers a wide range of situations; the degree of civilisation attained by different peoples is extremely varied. Again, the geographical, economic, demographic, etc., conditions of the mandated territories differ very greatly. Accordingly, the Covenant (paragraphs 3 to 6 of Article 22) distinguishes between three categories of mandates, taking into account differences in the stage of development of the population, in the geographical situation of the territory, in the economic conditions prevailing and any other circumstances which may be relevant."

"In a first group -- "A" Mandates1/ (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq) -- the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone." (LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945)​

While it is true that the Group "A" Mandate Territories had "provisional" recognition, none of them met the criterial for independence and self-government; territories unable to stand alone.

The populations of the Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, Transjordan, and Iraq all advanced a little quicker than did the remainder of Palestine (less Trans-Jordan); and thus, achieved an ability to stand alone as independent states.

Most Respectfully,
R