Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

Israel is a foreign military power? Come on. Fess' up. You read that slogan on the internet somewhere and thought you would copy and paste it here, right?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.

The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.

Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.

So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them

All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

Israel is a foreign military power? Come on. Fess' up. You read that slogan on the internet somewhere and thought you would copy and paste it here, right?

Didnt you know that Israel is really the capital of Khazaria and was the birthplace of zionist wars against unarmed arab muslim women and children. The armies were led by the military strategist Sampson, the navy by admiral Jonah and the air force by wing commander Moses

 

[montelatici]

Let me tell you something dingbat. You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis. You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.

So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them. You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.

The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.

 

[MJB12741]

Let me tell you something dingbat. You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis. You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.

So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them. You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.

The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.

Now now Monte. No need to get so vicious with your comments ("piece of crap"). Have you considered taking a course in anger management?

 

[Phoenall]

Let me tell you something dingbat. You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis. You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.

So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them. You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.

The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.

YES as their mothers strapped the bombs to them as they wheeled them into Israeli hospitals visiting their fathers who had been shot while being terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

Let me tell you something dingbat. You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis. You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.

So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them. You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.

The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.

Now now Monte. No need to get so vicious with your comments ("piece of crap"). Have you considered taking a course in anger management?

He wrote the book that became the definitive study work

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel 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 coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Let me tell you something dingbat. You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis. You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.

So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them. You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.

The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.

Oh, such pretentious melodrama.

It's the Cult of islamic ideology that breeds a population so willing to throw their young onto the raging bonfire of hatred. And, it's Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers like you who cheer them on.

Just be honest, sweetie. You ache for the death of "Pal'istanians" as that is the vehicle that drives your insensate Jew hatreds.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel 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 coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel 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 coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

But 242 never said that did it, and that is just the definition used by islamonazi's and the hate sites. The real definition is the one produced by the authors that spells out what each clause means ?


United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel 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 coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

 

[Shusha]

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

242 requires:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;


242 has been largely satisfied. Remember, 242 has nothing at all to do with the Arab Palestinians. (This can not be stressed enough). It only concerns itself with the States in the area. Most of the States in the area (Israel, Jordan and Egypt) have peace treaties and have thus formally terminated all claims or states of belligerency. The other States (Lebanon and Syria) still have on-going border disputes with Israel.

Israel has satisfied the requirement to withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict, in terms of the West Bank, as evidenced by Jordan's acceptance of a peace treaty with her. The Golan Heights is the only territory still under question.

Israel's dispute with "Palestine" has nothing at all to do with 242 and is addressed separately in the Oslo Accords, which demand a negotiated treaty between those two parties.

 

[Shusha]

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous.

I would go further than that. The language was designed to deliberately NOT require Israels' withdrawal from all the territories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.

The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.

Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.

So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them

All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse

The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
the occupying power. As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced
to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces
or give military assistance to the occupying power.

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and
genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-
mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part
in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected
against attack.

As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
pying power, the latter must take all measures in its power to restore
and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.
As a rule, the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-
tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before
occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so.

The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts
and sciences, must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. It is forbidden to seize, destroy or
wilfully damage such property. The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
by military operations.

The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, it would be wrong
for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the
resistance, even in a policing role.

The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel 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 coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

Correct and the arab muslims by refusing to lay down their weapons did not comply and are still in breach to this day. Far too many people ignore the sections aimed at the arab muslims, and also ignore the fact that palestine and palestinians are not on the agenda

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.

The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.

Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.

So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them

All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse

The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
the occupying power. As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced
to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces
or give military assistance to the occupying power.

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and
genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-
mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part
in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected
against attack.

As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
pying power, the latter must take all measures in its power to restore
and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.
As a rule, the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-
tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before
occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so.

The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts
and sciences, must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. It is forbidden to seize, destroy or
wilfully damage such property. The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
by military operations.

The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, it would be wrong
for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the
resistance, even in a policing role.

The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

This is not the law of occupation at all it is a school lesson by the ICRC. It uses international law that never existed and then uses international law that does out of context and retroactively. The only law of occupation is to be found in the Geneva conventions so try referencing to that and that alone

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel 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 coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

Correct and the arab muslims by refusing to lay down their weapons did not comply and are still in breach to this day. Far too many people ignore the sections aimed at the arab muslims, and also ignore the fact that palestine and palestinians are not on the agenda

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.

The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.

Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.

So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them

All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse

The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
the occupying power. As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced
to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces
or give military assistance to the occupying power.

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and
genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-
mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part
in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected
against attack.

As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
pying power, the latter must take all measures in its power to restore
and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.
As a rule, the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-
tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before
occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so.

The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts
and sciences, must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. It is forbidden to seize, destroy or
wilfully damage such property. The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
by military operations.

The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, it would be wrong
for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the
resistance, even in a policing role.

The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

This is not the law of occupation at all it is a school lesson by the ICRC. It uses international law that never existed and then uses international law that does out of context and retroactively. The only law of occupation is to be found in the Geneva conventions so try referencing to that and that alone

Not true, of course.

The first codification of international rules relating to occupation can be
found in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907, which themselves
were built on customary international law. Many lessons drawn from
the crimes committed in the occupied territories of Europe and the Far
East during the Second World War were subsequently incorporated into
the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, which codifies a substantial part of
modern international law applicable to occupation.​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore and Elroy, et al,

First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.

The Articles of the actual law (GCIV +) trump your interpretation of the handbook. The handbook may say that a Resistance is possible, but it still must follow the very same rules as any other armed force.​

Second, It is much better to subscribe to the Ideas and authority of the Authors of Resolution 242. The will tell you that the Resolution does not say what you think it says.

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately.
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.

So they used fake information. .