RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, Contumacious, Challenger, et al,
There are some good points to be had in this exchange. Let's see if I can address them.
Each Armistice agreement, made between the military representatives, stopped the forward advance of each opposing forces relative to the other. Withdrawal of forces to the Armistice Demarcation Line and the reduction of forces (if any) to defensive strength in accordance with the individual agreements.
An Armistice (Princeton Unv WolrdNet --- cease-fire, truce --- a state of peace agreed to between opponents so they can discuss peace terms) is suppose to be a temporary measure. In 1949, establishing the cease fire, both Egypt and Jordan attempted to capitalize on the extension of sovereignty in different ways. But clearly, those designs by distinguished members of the Arab League were neutralized by the 1967 Six Day War.
Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:
Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:
Derivative SOURCE: DiscoverTheNetworks.ORG
That is your opinion and your entitled to make any assessment you might find descriptive. Just as it is my opinion that no participants in the historical events of that time was as successful as they would have liked to have been.
And I guess that was the issue that the 1948/49 Israeli War of Independence was suppose to address. And out of the participants to that conflict, Israel has made peace with both Egypt, which had control of the Gaza Strip until 1967, and Jordan, which had control of the West Bank and Jerusalem until 1967.
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.
ARTICLE 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
I do not care if you do not recognize the Right of Israel to exist. Recognition by you and your likeminded is irrelevant. The Reality is that in the "Tangle Universe" there is a place called Israel and it does exist.
Article 1 --- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 1(2) --- UN Charter
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Now, if you are saying that only the Arab Palestinians have that right, then you need to say so. The Israelis declared and defended their self-determination to establish the Jewish State of Israel as their National Home.
Answer 1. The point I'm trying to make is that under treaty, the Title and Rights of the territory were passed from the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers recognized the Israeli self-determination to establish the Jewish National Home.
Answer 2. The UN and Syria are welcome to exercise the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations, once the State of Syria engages in Peace talks under Armistice from the 1948 Act of Aggression. In those talks, the necessary restitution and reparation discussed --- agreed upon pertaining to the Syrian use of force on territorial frontiers of Israel.
Answer 3. It is TRUE that the Arab League Summit of Rabat, Morocco (October 1974) presented the PLO as ″the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; with conditions:
• It did not relinquish any territory, as the Arab League had no rights or title to territory. It said: "Palestinian territory that is liberated."
• The territorial venue was based on a future established.
In 30 July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties to the West Bank. Israel had already established "effective control: over the West Band and parts of Jerusalem. The PLO have not yet declared independence. When a "prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty," that is the very definition of Terra Nullius.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about my spelling. My typing is very much atrocious. Please except my apology for this mistake and the many, many more future mistakes I will make in the future. I will even make grammatical errors quite frequently. I am not perfect by any means (and will "never" be perfect).
Answer 4. Well (you will have to excuse me), most Arab Palestinians constituents of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip are considered member of the community which provides material assistance to Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters operating in opposition to the Article 43 Hague Regulation on matters of to restoring, and ensuring public order and safety. Thus, when we speak of "effective control" --- we are speaking of the Article 42 Requirements that describes Territory considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the Government.
"The occupation extends only to the territory where Israeli authority has been established and can be exercised." This is an important distinction. In the West Bank, Areas "A" and "B" are areas in which the Israelis do not have effective authority or control; thus, not under Occupation in the strict compliance sense.
An invasion is an an entirely different action altogether. "In fact, belligerent occupation is regarded as a species of international armed conflict and treated as such by the relevant instruments of IHL, particularly the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949." Thus, the use of the term "belligerent" implies:
• International armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States,
• For example, there may be an IAC, even though one of the belligerents does not recognize the government of the adverse party.
Answer 5. Yes, "never" and "always" are (generally) terms of statements that add emphasis as to the probability of whatever occurrence it describes. They are not statements of proof. Just as the statement "Why are there exceptions to every rule;" because the question itself is non-sensical. The same is true of the term "infinite."
Most Respectfully,
R
There are some good points to be had in this exchange. Let's see if I can address them.
(COMMENT)
Each Armistice agreement, made between the military representatives, stopped the forward advance of each opposing forces relative to the other. Withdrawal of forces to the Armistice Demarcation Line and the reduction of forces (if any) to defensive strength in accordance with the individual agreements.
An Armistice (Princeton Unv WolrdNet --- cease-fire, truce --- a state of peace agreed to between opponents so they can discuss peace terms) is suppose to be a temporary measure. In 1949, establishing the cease fire, both Egypt and Jordan attempted to capitalize on the extension of sovereignty in different ways. But clearly, those designs by distinguished members of the Arab League were neutralized by the 1967 Six Day War.
Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:
“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
Derivative SOURCE: DiscoverTheNetworks.ORG
(COMMENT)
That is your opinion and your entitled to make any assessment you might find descriptive. Just as it is my opinion that no participants in the historical events of that time was as successful as they would have liked to have been.
(COMMENT)
And I guess that was the issue that the 1948/49 Israeli War of Independence was suppose to address. And out of the participants to that conflict, Israel has made peace with both Egypt, which had control of the Gaza Strip until 1967, and Jordan, which had control of the West Bank and Jerusalem until 1967.
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.
ARTICLE 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
I do not care if you do not recognize the Right of Israel to exist. Recognition by you and your likeminded is irrelevant. The Reality is that in the "Tangle Universe" there is a place called Israel and it does exist.
Article 1 --- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Now, if you are saying that only the Arab Palestinians have that right, then you need to say so. The Israelis declared and defended their self-determination to establish the Jewish State of Israel as their National Home.
(COMMENT)
Answer 1. The point I'm trying to make is that under treaty, the Title and Rights of the territory were passed from the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers recognized the Israeli self-determination to establish the Jewish National Home.
Answer 2. The UN and Syria are welcome to exercise the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations, once the State of Syria engages in Peace talks under Armistice from the 1948 Act of Aggression. In those talks, the necessary restitution and reparation discussed --- agreed upon pertaining to the Syrian use of force on territorial frontiers of Israel.
Answer 3. It is TRUE that the Arab League Summit of Rabat, Morocco (October 1974) presented the PLO as ″the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; with conditions:
• It did not relinquish any territory, as the Arab League had no rights or title to territory. It said: "Palestinian territory that is liberated."
• The territorial venue was based on a future established.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about my spelling. My typing is very much atrocious. Please except my apology for this mistake and the many, many more future mistakes I will make in the future. I will even make grammatical errors quite frequently. I am not perfect by any means (and will "never" be perfect).
Answer 4. Well (you will have to excuse me), most Arab Palestinians constituents of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip are considered member of the community which provides material assistance to Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters operating in opposition to the Article 43 Hague Regulation on matters of to restoring, and ensuring public order and safety. Thus, when we speak of "effective control" --- we are speaking of the Article 42 Requirements that describes Territory considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the Government.
"The occupation extends only to the territory where Israeli authority has been established and can be exercised." This is an important distinction. In the West Bank, Areas "A" and "B" are areas in which the Israelis do not have effective authority or control; thus, not under Occupation in the strict compliance sense.
An invasion is an an entirely different action altogether. "In fact, belligerent occupation is regarded as a species of international armed conflict and treated as such by the relevant instruments of IHL, particularly the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949." Thus, the use of the term "belligerent" implies:
• International armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States,
• For example, there may be an IAC, even though one of the belligerents does not recognize the government of the adverse party.
Answer 5. Yes, "never" and "always" are (generally) terms of statements that add emphasis as to the probability of whatever occurrence it describes. They are not statements of proof. Just as the statement "Why are there exceptions to every rule;" because the question itself is non-sensical. The same is true of the term "infinite."
Most Respectfully,
R
