Palestine Today

[toastman]

Google "Palestinian suicide bombings"

If your child was shot in the head by the IDF; what would you do-?

Instead of committing suicide by yourself, maybe take a few Israeli IDF killers with you?

Google "IDF shooting children"

Nov 23, 2004 - Radio exchange contradicts army version of Gaza killing.
https://tinyurl.com/ybk8lvmq

Israel 'killed 25 Palestinian children' in three months
Twenty-five Palestinian children were killed in the last three months of 2015 during a wave of anti-Israeli attacks and the number detained was the highest in seven years, according to the UNICEF.
https://tinyurl.com/y92tvluh

2016 'deadliest year' for West Bank children in decade
Israeli forces killed 32 Palestinian children in the West Bank in 2016, the highest number in 10 years.

The organisation's chapter in the occupied Palestinian territories recorded the killings of 32 Palestinian children (under 18), making 2016 "the deadliest year of the past decade" for them, the group said in a recent report.
https://tinyurl.com/y85ctr7v

12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD in front of your eyes
Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes

Gaza girl said killed
By Amos Harel and Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondents,
and Haaretz Service
Thu., October 28, 2004

IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html

UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and AP
ue., October 12, 2004 Tishrei 27, 5765

An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach and critically wounded by Israel Defense Forces gunfire. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a 10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html

There are dozens more children killed in this way, what would you do--?
-

Do you really, in your heart, that the IDF as a whole, target Palestinian children?

What does the IDF or Israel have to gain by PURPOSELY shooting children?

 

[toastman]

Google "Palestinian suicide bombings"

If your child was shot in the head by the IDF; what would you do-?

Instead of committing suicide by yourself, maybe take a few Israeli IDF killers with you?


-

So you're saying that Palestinian suicide bombings only killed IDF soldiers?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Google "Palestinian suicide bombings"

If your child was shot in the head by the IDF; what would you do-?

Instead of committing suicide by yourself, maybe take a few Israeli IDF killers with you?

Google "IDF shooting children"

Nov 23, 2004 - Radio exchange contradicts army version of Gaza killing.
https://tinyurl.com/ybk8lvmq

Israel 'killed 25 Palestinian children' in three months
Twenty-five Palestinian children were killed in the last three months of 2015 during a wave of anti-Israeli attacks and the number detained was the highest in seven years, according to the UNICEF.
https://tinyurl.com/y92tvluh

2016 'deadliest year' for West Bank children in decade
Israeli forces killed 32 Palestinian children in the West Bank in 2016, the highest number in 10 years.

The organisation's chapter in the occupied Palestinian territories recorded the killings of 32 Palestinian children (under 18), making 2016 "the deadliest year of the past decade" for them, the group said in a recent report.
https://tinyurl.com/y85ctr7v

12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD in front of your eyes
Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes

Gaza girl said killed
By Amos Harel and Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondents,
and Haaretz Service
Thu., October 28, 2004

IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html

UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and AP
ue., October 12, 2004 Tishrei 27, 5765

An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach and critically wounded by Israel Defense Forces gunfire. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a 10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html

There are dozens more children killed in this way, what would you do--?
-

All of my cousins have served in the IDF. Do you think they liked patrolling the West Bank? They hated it, they're all leftists, and not particularly religious to boot. They would gladly give up the West Bank tomorrow, if only the Palestinians would behave like normal ppl, and also give up their dream of taking over all of israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

Thanks for the link. BTW

"Voluntary" is not used in this link.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,​

What law requires Palestine to be partitioned into two states?

Link?

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

By declaring independence, which was recognized by most of the world. It was not a country before.

It is now ,however, whether you like it or not Tinmore. Israel is a legit country, part of the United Nations, and recognized by most of the globe, except of course Islamic scum...and there is nothing you can do about it,

 

[toastman]

Isn't it ironic that Tinmore is asking others to back up their claims with links, when I have him to do just that countless times and he was nowhere to be found.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

By declaring independence, which was recognized by most of the world. It was not a country before.

It is now ,however, whether you like it or not Tinmore. Israel is a legit country, part of the United Nations, and recognized by most of the globe, except of course Islamic scum...and there is nothing you can do about it,

declaring independence

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Link?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

U.N. vote. ???

Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented. There was no allotted territory.

What else you got?

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

By declaring independence, which was recognized by most of the world. It was not a country before.

It is now ,however, whether you like it or not Tinmore. Israel is a legit country, part of the United Nations, and recognized by most of the globe, except of course Islamic scum...and there is nothing you can do about it,

declaring independence

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Link?

The British, who controlled the territory at the time, voted to partition the land. Jews accepted, Arabs rejected. When the Arabs rejected, and saw that Jews were starting to build their country, they (Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) attacked Israel and lost the war.

Here's your link:

How did Israel become a country in the first place?

Had the Arabs not attacked, Palestinians would have their own country. You can't start a war, then whine when the people you attacked use that very land to start their own country.

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

U.N. vote. ???

Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented. There was no allotted territory.

What else you got?

It wasn't implemented because Arabs rejected the deal. So the Jews moved forward and decided to build their own country, but were attacked. During the course of this war, the Jews won and created the country known as Israel.

Arabs lost, Jews won. Deal with it.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

U.N. vote. ???

Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented. There was no allotted territory.

What else you got?

Yes, the U.N. voted on November 29, 1947 to partition the geographic area known as Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The vote was 33 to 13, with 10 countries abstaining. Based on this vote, Israel declared independence upon the expiration of the British Mandate. Just like the United States or the Latin American countries declared independence, but without any vote authorizing them to do so.

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

U.N. vote. ???

Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented. There was no allotted territory.

What else you got?

United Nations Resolution 181, resolution passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”) to be governed by a special international regime. The resolution—which was considered by the Jewish community in Palestine to be a legal basis for the establishment of Israel, and which was rejected by the Arab community—was succeeded almost immediately by violence.

What else you got?

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

By declaring independence, which was recognized by most of the world. It was not a country before.

It is now ,however, whether you like it or not Tinmore. Israel is a legit country, part of the United Nations, and recognized by most of the globe, except of course Islamic scum...and there is nothing you can do about it,

declaring independence

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Link?

Here's your link:

How did Israel become a country in the first place?

Had the Arabs not attacked, Palestinians would have their own country. You can't start a war, then whine when the people you attacked use that very land to start their own country.

He denies that the " occupied territories" FORMALLY became parts of Jordan , When Egypt had Gaza it was not referred to as " occupied"



to search




Gaza Strip

قطاع غزة
Qiṭā‘ Ghazza
1959–1967

Flag

Coat of arms

Gaza Strip after the 1949 Armistice.
Status Area occupied by the United Arab Republic/Arab Republic of Egypt

• e

The occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt occurred between 1949 and October 1956 and again from March 1957 to June 1967.

Funny from everything I have read it is never referred to as an " occupation"

The British, who controlled the territory at the time, voted to partition the land. Jews accepted, Arabs rejected. When the Arabs rejected, and saw that Jews were starting to build their country, they (Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) attacked Israel and lost the war.​

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

As far as the video of Professor Noura Erakat is concerned, I actually do not have much to say about it. The statement is a very good explanation for the position held by the Arab Palestinian. There is, in fact, a legal basis for the status of the settlement.

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

In the “One State Solution” who would decide what Holy Sites one would have access to and who would enforce it?
There will be no response because he honestly can’t answer the question. Keep dreaming.

(REFERENCE)

Of course, Professor Erakat is referring to:

• Article 7(1d): Crimes Against Humanity: Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​

(COMMENT)

If you actually look-up the Law, both Customary (Rome Statutes ICC) and International Humanitarian Law (Fourth Geneva Convention) you will find that neither prohibits "voluntary" transfers and negates the concept that the settlements constitute a "flagrant violation under international law."

There are a couple of arguments to be made that reloves around some specific prohibitions:

◈ Article 46 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

◈ Article 52 • Hague Regulation of 1907: Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

◈ Article 53 (GCIV) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

But as you go through them, you will see that they are not absolute. Nor do these positions agree with Conventions on Border Controls, Anti-Terrorist Bombing Countermeasure, Enforcement on Small Arms Trafficking, (etc, etc, etc) and financial restrictions.

But I say again, for a sound bite, nothing that Professor Noura Erakat said is worth quibbling about.


Most Respectfully,
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?

Link?

*Yawn*, again? Seriously? San Remo Conference, Balfour Declaration, U.N. vote, Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan, etc. When will you realize it is 2020, and not 1948 anymore?

The San Remo Conference, and Balfour Declaration were not land treaties.

U.N. vote. ???

Israel taking over the territory allocated to it under the U.N. Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented. There was no allotted territory.

What else you got?

Again this routine?

The San Remo Conference, vested sovereignty over all of Palestine to the Jewish Nation, was founded on the basis of the Covenant of The League of Nations.

And the Balfour Declaration was further incorporated into international law and quoted in several treaties including the Mandate of Palestine and the Anglo-American convention.

Indeed, there was no mention of allotting any territory for an Arab state.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

• Article 49(6): Fourth Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).
Found in the "Commentary of 1958."

Article 7(2d), ICC Rome Statute: For the purposes of the International Criminal Court and Article 7(1d) Above → Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

​

Thanks for the link. BTW
"Voluntary" is not used in this link.

(COMMENT)

Well, ICC citation says "means forced displacement of the persons" and the GCIV Commentary (1958) says authorize voluntary transfers.

Both were provided to you and highlighted so you would not miss it.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, ForeverYoung436, et al,

First (a), you are NOT quoting a "law."

First (b), the subtext to the 1948 (Question of Palestine) is the Israelis had exercised the right of self-determination in establishing the sovereign State of Israel.

This revised edition of “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem. Also, it had been 40 years since the June 1967 war, the occupation by Israel of Egyptian and Syrian territory and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the adoption of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is the basis of all subsequent peace initiatives.
​

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,​

How did Israel acquire the 1948 territory?
Link?

(COMMENT)

Second, the 1967 War was a resumption of hostilities of the 1948 War of Independence (an outbreak of hostilities). And it was a matter of self-defense under Articles 2 and 51 of the Charter (which is law).

Third, the territory was politically abandoned by the Jordanians (not Arab Palestinian), which the Jordanians term as the disengagement of the West Bank (1988 • "on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.").

Fourth, the Palestine Liberations Organization (PLO - the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) agreed in writing and in front of international observers, to Oslo II (one of the architects being Mahmoud Abbas), which gave the Israelis full Israeli civil and security control over the West Bank and Jerusalem.

※ I find it interesting is that you cannot quote an actual "LAW" that uses "acquisition of territory by force" and a court that suggests the 1948 application of the Right of Self-determination was an example of this "use of force." My understanding is that the territory was in the hands of the UN Trustee System.

• And the UN Trustee System never claimed that as the use of force.
  
• Nor has a court ruled on the Arab League Intervention.
• Nor has the court defined a "border" or the Right to Protect borders.

Nor has a court taken into consideration of the Treaties of Peace (both with Jordan and Egypt) and the establishment by treaty the permanent boundaries.

All countries have the right to protect their sovereign boundaries. This boundary issue is no different from the dispute between the Kurds and the Turks --- the Kurds and Iraq. What would the Turks say if the International Community sided with the Right to Self-Determination of the Kurds with regard to Iraq and Turkey?

No, you have the wrong concept of who has to bow to the Arab Palestinian.

Interesting side note: With the ouster of progressive governments throughout Latin America and their replacement with right-wing neo-fascist regimes, Israeli counter-insurgency advisers, better known as "merchants of death," have returned to Latin America with fervor. Fascist-oriented regimes in Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Paraguay, Guatemala, and Chile, eager to displace indigenous peoples, have invited the Israelis back to their nations to provide advice on depopulating indigenous regions as systematically as Israel has done to the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.​

The current High Commissioner for Human Rights is Michelle Bachelet of Chile (which has Israeli advisors on the ground in Chile). Commissioner Bachelet, who succeeded Zeid Raad Al Hussein of Jordan. Jordan has abandoned the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?

Once again, you ask the most interesting questions, but will inevitably refuse to deal with the answers.

Sovereignty can ABSOLUTELY be acquired by unilateral declaration. That is actually HOW it happens. That is HOW new States come into being. They unilaterally declare independence. The entire foundation of the laws between States literally rests upon this principle.

Now, you are trying to conflate "acquisition of territory" with "sovereignty". (Its a distraction. And you aren't fooling anyone.) Still, since you brought it up, let's talk about "the acquisition of territory".

Your question supposes that in order to apply sovereignty, one must first legally acquire territory. (I'd argue that is a false assumption. In order to apply sovereignty to a specific territory, one must be able to apply actual, facts-on-the-ground, real, measurable, effective control of the territory.) But let's go with your assumption.

Territory can change hands in a number of ways. It can be abandoned entirely. It can be ceded specifically. It can be negotiated in treaties.

The territory of Palestine was abandoned entirely. It was no longer under the sovereignty of any State.

So here is where you won't acknowledge the reality which you actually presented with your question: in a territory where there is an absolute ABSENCE of sovereignty, how else can sovereignty be obtained EXCEPT through unilateral declaration?