Palestine Today

[rylah]

Son's death was "best day of my life," says Palestinian mother

 

[rylah]

Myths and Facts : "ISIS and Hamas Are Different"

 

[P F Tinmore]

SAMAR Media This is Palestine Shadia Mansour ENG

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Just what particular legal citation or clause are you basing this assertion?

Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is.

BTW, Israel annexed occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What does the actual law say?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

Nazi flag flying over the Palestinian village of Beit Ummar

​

He sees NOTHING wrong with that !!

 

[USAF 2023]

Yawn... They should be home schooled.

 

[P F Tinmore]

TED Talk - "Challenging the Establishment" | Mnar Muhawesh

 

[USAF 2023]

Son's death was "best day of my life," says Palestinian mother

Just proves they are Uncivilized

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Just what particular legal citation or clause are you basing this assertion?

Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is.

BTW, Israel annexed occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What does the actual law say?

Most Respectfully,
R

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act.

Annexation - Wikipedia

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Just what particular legal citation or clause are you basing this assertion?

Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is.

BTW, Israel annexed occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What does the actual law say?

Most Respectfully,
R

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act.

Annexation - Wikipedia

Yawn...,,
Jordan Initiated the War
The territiry was formally recognized as being part of Jordan. You can cut and paste till the Cows come home but that’s not going to change the facts.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a layman's definition.

What does the actual law say?

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act.

(COMMENT)

Wikipedia is (for a free resource) a damn good starting point. But you cannot take a wikipedia before the court and admit it as evidence. What partuclar enforceable law are you referring to when you said: "Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is."

• What law (citation please)?
• Why is it NOT enforced?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a layman's definition.

What does the actual law say?

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act.

(COMMENT)

Wikipedia is (for a free resource) a damn good starting point. But you cannot take a wikipedia before the court and admit it as evidence. What partuclar enforceable law are you referring to when you said: "Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is."

• What law (citation please)?
• Why is it NOT enforced?

Most Respectfully,
R

Prohibition of Annexation
The rule of international customary law that prohibits unilateral annexation of territory, at least while a conflict is still continuing, is a necessary foundation for the whole idea that occupation is subject to a distinct regulatory framework.

https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/co...rts_on_transformative_military_occupation.pdf

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a layman's definition.

What does the actual law say?

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act.

(COMMENT)

Wikipedia is (for a free resource) a damn good starting point. But you cannot take a wikipedia before the court and admit it as evidence. What partuclar enforceable law are you referring to when you said: "Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is."

• What law (citation please)?
• Why is it NOT enforced?

Most Respectfully,
R

A “ law” that is only enforced selectively cannot and will not be taken seriously.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a layman's definition.

What does the actual law say?

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action[1] and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act.

(COMMENT)

Wikipedia is (for a free resource) a damn good starting point. But you cannot take a wikipedia before the court and admit it as evidence. What partuclar enforceable law are you referring to when you said: "Deflection. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is what it is."

• What law (citation please)?
• Why is it NOT enforced?

Most Respectfully,
R

Prohibition of Annexation
The rule of international customary law that prohibits unilateral annexation of territory, at least while a conflict is still continuing, is a necessary foundation for the whole idea that occupation is subject to a distinct regulatory framework.

https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/co...rts_on_transformative_military_occupation.pdf

Could you email a copy of that to Ummah’istan?

There’s a good fellow.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I would like to make a few short points before I move on.

Prohibition of Annexation
The rule of international customary law that prohibits unilateral annexation of territory, at least while a conflict is still continuing, is a necessary foundation for the whole idea that occupation is subject to a distinct regulatory framework.

https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/co...rts_on_transformative_military_occupation.pdf

(COMMENT)

Is a nice article and a professional view of the question. It took me a while to scan through it.

✪ IF there was some law, convention or treaty that stated "it is illegal to annex occupied territory." with the certainty that you add "it is what it is" THEN the author (Professor Adam Roberts*) would have unambiguously stated it. Instead he talks about:

• The law on occupations remains both viable and useful, and has proved reasonably flexible in practice.

• The Acticle 2(4) of the UN Charter applies to an invader; and not the defender in hot pursuit of the invader.

• The existence of a possible legal justification for pursuing transformative projects in military
occupations might be thought to have two consequences, but neither of them follows auto-
matically from it.

• Three aspects of the law relating to occupied territories exemplifythis requirement:

√ The first, the prohibition on annexation, has survived, battered but unbowed.
√ The second and third are under much greater pressure.​

But Professor Adams does NOT cite the authority for this prohibition. Instead:

Prohibition of Annexation

The rule of international customary law that prohibits unilateral annexation of territory, at
least while a conflict is still continuing, is a necessary foundation for the whole idea that occu-
pation is subject to a distinct regulatory framework. The rule serves as a reminder of the limits
imposed on an occupying power—limits that might also have implications for “transforma-
tive” occupations. Although annexation and transformation are conceptually and legally very
different, they do have one thing in common—they tend to involve extending to the occupied
territory the type of political system adhered to by the occupying power.​

Nowhere in that section (I read it twice) does he identify the legal authority to prohibit the act of annexation in occupation.

When you find an "applicable law" I'll be happy to listen. Until then, remember:

Nullum crimen sine lege

[Subpara 1 and 3 cut for presentation purposes.]

⇒ 2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by
analog y. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the
person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
​

​

IF you reinterpret the law or attempt to make it say something to fit your situation, THEN it is
definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

* Montague Burton Professor of International Relations, Oxford University; Fellow, Balliol College.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[USAF 2023]

Keep posting ! All you are doing is verifying they have no interest in “ The Two State Solution”

 

[P F Tinmore]

• The Acticle 2(4) of the UN Charter applies to an invader; and not the defender in hot pursuit of the invader.

Article 2
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

You are (again) basing your conclusions on false premise. You are saying that the citizens of Palestine are the invaders and the foreign settlers out of Europe are the defenders.

You make no sense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Keep posting ! All you are doing is verifying they have no interest in “ The Two State Solution”

The two state solution (solution to what problem?) has been on the table since 1937 and nobody has been able to get that pig to fly. It has always been one state. It is one state now.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No false premise...

Article 2
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

You are (again) basing your conclusions on false premise. You are saying that the citizens of Palestine are the invaders and the foreign settlers out of Europe are the defenders.

You make no sense.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, it is universally recognized that the Arab League attempted to invade Israel to obstruct Jewish Self-determination. That set the conditions for an armistice.

The international community understood that the Mandate was terminating. Under Article 77 of the UN Charter, and at the direction of the UN, the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) was to become the successor government. That Successor Government had been working with the Jewish Agency in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. It was all a move in the light of day with full transparency. The UNPC offered to work with the Arab High Committee, but they had rejected participation in the process necessary to create working self-governing institution (something they still are lacking after half a century).

In 1967, the conflict again was not a matter of the Israelis opposing the Arab Palestinians, who had rejected participation in self-governing institutions, but a pursuit of hostile Jordanian Forces. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan (1950), and the people were Jordanian citizens. The State of Israel occupied territory it overran in pursuit of hostile forces.

Most Respectfully,
R