So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[Boston1]

My personal take on palestinian rights of self determination are similar to my take on the rights of anyones self determination. Those rights are given up once illegal acts are committed.

Resisting the belligerent occupation of a foreign force, is not illegal. Maintaining a belligerent occupation for almost 50 years and forcing an entire population of people to live under martial law, is illegal. It's also inhuman and immoral.

That is why Israel has no choice but to go back to the '67 borders. Check that.......let me re-phrase my statement.

Israel has no choice but to end the occupation; going back to the '67 borders, will be a result of that.

Murder and terrorism are certainly illegal acts.

So is shooting at people fishing.




So is placing knives next to the bodies of a Palestinian you just shot in cold blood.

Now if you want to consider it a war...

But its not a war. It's an occupation. A war denotes opposing armies going at each other. We don't have that here. What we have is on one side, the 4th most militarized country on the planet and on the other, an entire population of people under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves.

... then I think Israel is being damn lenient.

Is administrative detention lenient?

Is it lenient to bulldoze the home of a family in the middle of the night without giving any notice?

Is it lenient bombing hospitals or targeting first responders?

There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.

So given that Israel is establishing a national Jewish homeland EXACTLY where internationally agreed how is the term occupation applicable ? It isn't. Its just more spin on the part of the palestinian PR machine.

We might as well face the truth here. When Jordan occupied the area previous to 67 and gave the Arabs living there citizenship, there was no cry of statehood for some separate little area. There was no complaining about palestine being renamed Jordan. There was no violence against Jordan for occupying so called palestinian land. THE ONLY REASON for the present nonsense about an occupation is ENTIRELY based on prejudice and bigotry. The Arabs simply refuse to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors and can't stomach a cooperative governance. Its racism all the way.

These claims of occupation are nothing more than another PR ploy to destabilize the security and safety of the only Jewish nation.

There is no chance that Israel with withdraw to some mythical green line. The Arab populations within that area are either going to have to adapt to a peaceful coexistence or be deported. For now restrictions are in place to reduce the terrorist acts and limit the death tolls. However eventually deportations will have to be, and will be stepped up if the present trend continues.

The worlds opinion is shifting back towards the Israeli side with every violent act the palestinians commit.

 

[Shusha]

There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.

The myth that there is such a thing as "1967 borders" and an "occupation" has been adopted wholesale by the global community despite every single legal instrument for the past 80 years clearly say two things: 1. the borders between Israel and another future independent Arab State are to be determined by negotiation and 2. the 1949 Armistice Lines in no way prejudice or predict or delineate the outcome of said negotiations.

That the vast majority of the international community have adopted this blatantly false narrative is shocking and ridiculous.

Jordan has no claim to sovereignty on the land between its border with Israel and the Armistice Lines. As has been pointed out, one does not get to keep land gained in a war of aggression, thus Jordan can not claim that land outright. And since a nation can not benefit from an aggressive war, the defender has a better claim to the territory than the aggressor. In 1948 and in 1967 there were no other sovereigns to choose from. There was Israel and there was Jordan. So that particular slice of land is either Israel's, in which case there is no occupation and no land gained in a war, OR there is a sovereignty vacuum in that particular slice of land, in which case the sovereign who has effective control over the territory and who defended against an aggressor has the better claim to sovereignty.

The faulty narrative that some on this thread rely on is the idea that there is some unknown, vaguely understood Arab sovereignty over this territory. Simply unsupportable in law.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you asked the questions. I answered them directly.

The method of acquisition was described. A combination of "Declarative" and “Constitutive.” However, as a means of establishing a historical record, they come in handy. Each record is dated.

There is no ducking the question.

I provided the documentation, although documentation IS NOT required using either method. It is a matter of exclusive control.

You are still ducking the question as to the acquisition of territory.

BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

(REFERENCE)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

• 
  ARTICLE 47 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2, para. 4;

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.​

UN General Assembly resolution 2625 of 24 October 1970, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/25/2625.

Khartoum Resolution,

3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.​

(COMMENT)

A couple of point need to be made at this point:

The remaining individual parties to the conflict (Lebanon, Syria) and the non-state quasi-party (Arab Palestinians) have no real intention of breaking away from the Khartoum Resolution in which the Arab League pledged to: "Within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country."

There are such things as Unilateral Exceptions to International Law. It should be noted that the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility has never been adopted or considered for passage into law. While there is a significant portion of Customary Law included in the draft codification, there are many points of contention that are neither Customary (practiced routine and consitantly), or considered advantageous to the rule of law. Some of the major points are simply unenforceable. Article 47, of the GCIV, is one of those points of contention.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations. Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

According to the principle concerning the non-use of force in international relations, as elaborated in the United Nations General Assembly Res 2625 (XXV) (containing the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations), ‘The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force’. In the same document, it is also emphasized that ‘No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal’, corollary recognized by the International Court of Justice as reflecting customary international law, as well as the remaining text of Res 2625 (XXV) concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force. The relevant parts of this Declaration have been recalled in the preamble of UN General Assembly Res 68/262, whereby, on 27 March 2014, the General Assembly has underscored that the referendum favorable to the accession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation ‘…having no legal validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status’ of these entities. Source: The Russian annexation of the Crimea: questions relating to the use of force
by ANTONELLO TANCREDI on May 11, 2014
​

Over the years, since the development of Humanitarian Law (IHL) began in the 19th Century, the net effect of the laws has been either to extend wars in their duration, or add to the complications of enforcement. The IHL and common Charter stipulate that the use of force in relations between states, forced annexation, and colonization are improper. But such laws are routinely exempt from notice when it involves segments of the international population that has extended it fear to coerce an exemption. The Arab Palestinians believe that they are exempt from common law and permitted to carry-out any number of acts in pursuit of their agenda.

No major power is going to go to war with the Russian Federation over the illegal annexation of the Crimea; just as no major powers are going to go to war over the annexation of selected parts of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. While in some circles, the Rule of Annexation is called customary --- it is not so customary that major exemptions are not made.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.

So given that Israel is establishing a national Jewish homeland EXACTLY where internationally agreed how is the term occupation applicable ? It isn't. Its just more spin on the part of the palestinian PR machine.

We might as well face the truth here. When Jordan occupied the area previous to 67 and gave the Arabs living there citizenship, there was no cry of statehood for some separate little area. There was no complaining about palestine being renamed Jordan. There was no violence against Jordan for occupying so called palestinian land. THE ONLY REASON for the present nonsense about an occupation is ENTIRELY based on prejudice and bigotry. The Arabs simply refuse to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors and can't stomach a cooperative governance. Its racism all the way.

These claims of occupation are nothing more than another PR ploy to destabilize the security and safety of the only Jewish nation.

There is no chance that Israel with withdraw to some mythical green line. The Arab populations within that area are either going to have to adapt to a peaceful coexistence or be deported. For now restrictions are in place to reduce the terrorist acts and limit the death tolls. However eventually deportations will have to be, and will be stepped up if the present trend continues.

The worlds opinion is shifting back towards the Israeli side with every violent act the palestinians commit.

UNSC resolution 242 is telling you to get the fuck off land that isn't yours and that's what you're going to fucking do! You either do it voluntarily, or you will eventually be forced to.

There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that fucking land, so cut the crap! Your position is ludicrous!

There can be no peace plan with pricks that think like you.

But if I was President, I'd bring peace to that area.

• First, I'd stop using our veto in the UNSC to protect Israel from being held accountable for the war crimes it commits.
• Then, I'd stop all weapons shipments to Israel.
• Then I'd freeze all Israeli assets in US banks.
• Then I'd outlaw AIPAC.
• And then, I'd submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to get the fuck out of the OPT, or else that decision will no longer be there's to make.
• On the 91st day, I'd send in the marines and drive the fucking Israeli's back to Israel.
• Finally, I'd set up a demilitarized zone along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker that enters it from either side.

That's my peace plan, asshole!

 

[Boston1]

Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.

From your link
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

Quote

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories.

End Quote

So what we have is a question of how combatants are treated vs how civilians are treated within defeated population. In regards to refugees it is the administrators of the refugee camps or the host nations that are responsible for segregating combatants from noncombatants. In the case of the Israeli palestinian conflict it is the responsibility of UNWRA. However, and here's the kicker. UNWRA is very nearly entirely staffed by palestinians who have zero interest in NOT aiding the war effort. THE UN FAILED COMPLETELY AT EVERY TURN TO SEGREGATE COMBATANTS FROM NON COMBATANTS AMONG THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE POPULATION.

This simple fact raises another interesting question. The legal justification of refugee status for much of todays palestinain population. Given that descendants are also considered refugees then the question becomes further complicated. Are descendants of combatants illegally hiding within a refugee population because of the UNs failure to segregate combatant from noncombatants, considered refugees ? Legally the only answer can be a resounding NO. But try and get the UNs pro palestinian organization in charge of palestinian refugees, the UNWRA to cooperate in performing its legal obligations and you quickly find that there is no governing body responsible for overseeing this organizations adherence to the UNs own regulations; THAT IS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE.

Its an interesting element of the bias so evident at the UN.

We have an obvious failure to segregate combatant from noncombatant elements of the palestinian refugee population throughout the ENTIRE conflict.

We have a completely unique situation in which descendants of refugees are also considered refugees, but ONLY when considering palestinian refugees

We have a definition of refugees which completely disregards any semblance of nationality, heritage, lineage, culture, history or indigenous ties to the land.

The list goes on and on

The point is that while you focus on the treatment of refugee populations in occupied lands. It remains a question of WHO QUALIFIES as a refugee. I'd contend that combatants do not qualify and may be detained in prisons until the end of hostilities. Ergo the restrictions placed on some so called refugee populations which might more accurately be described as combatants given that they both individually and collectively support terrorist acts, are perfectly legal under the geneva convention for the treatment of war prisoners

 

[Boston1]

There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.

So given that Israel is establishing a national Jewish homeland EXACTLY where internationally agreed how is the term occupation applicable ? It isn't. Its just more spin on the part of the palestinian PR machine.

We might as well face the truth here. When Jordan occupied the area previous to 67 and gave the Arabs living there citizenship, there was no cry of statehood for some separate little area. There was no complaining about palestine being renamed Jordan. There was no violence against Jordan for occupying so called palestinian land. THE ONLY REASON for the present nonsense about an occupation is ENTIRELY based on prejudice and bigotry. The Arabs simply refuse to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors and can't stomach a cooperative governance. Its racism all the way.

These claims of occupation are nothing more than another PR ploy to destabilize the security and safety of the only Jewish nation.

There is no chance that Israel with withdraw to some mythical green line. The Arab populations within that area are either going to have to adapt to a peaceful coexistence or be deported. For now restrictions are in place to reduce the terrorist acts and limit the death tolls. However eventually deportations will have to be, and will be stepped up if the present trend continues.

The worlds opinion is shifting back towards the Israeli side with every violent act the palestinians commit.

UNSC resolution 242 is telling you to get the fuck off land that isn't yours and that's what you're going to fucking do! You either do it voluntarily, or you will eventually be forced to.

There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that fucking land, so cut the crap! Your position is ludicrous!

There can be no peace plan with pricks that think like you.

But if I was President, I'd bring peace to that area.

• First, I'd stop using our veto in the UNSC to protect Israel from being held accountable for the war crimes it commits.
• Then, I'd stop all weapons shipments to Israel.
• Then I'd freeze all Israeli assets in US banks.
• Then I'd outlaw AIPAC.
• And then, I'd submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to get the fuck out of the OPT, or else that decision will no longer be there's to make.
• On the 91st day, I'd send in the marines and drive the fucking Israeli's back to Israel.
• Finally, I'd set up a demilitarized zone along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker that enters it from either side.

That's my peace plan, asshole!

WOW, just wow. OK take a deep breath and try and collect yourself.

First of all, again, by descending into the childish personal attacks you are clearly expressing your frustration over being educated in the history of this conflict. That history simply doesn't support the revisionist narrative you are trying to run up the flagpole.

Lets review

We've seen how the UN is extremely bias against Israel. Need I repeat that lesson for you ?

We've seen how Jordan does encompass the internationally agreed boundaries of palestine. Need I repeat that lesson for you ?

We've see how Jordan is the Arab state envisioned by the authors of the palestinian mandate and how israel is the Jewish state.

We've seen how the area west of the Jordan IS NOT JORDANIAN.

Now lets investigate your latest claims concerning UNR 242

Give me a minute to go look put he relevant language of the resolution

 

[Boston1]

The first thing I’d point out is that despite all the Arab blocks efforts to have Israel branded the aggressor in the 6 day war. All efforts failed.

Given that I’d further note that UNSC resolutions are only internationally binding to the extent they are adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter. A chapter VII resolution according to the charter is an action with respect to threats to the peace, breached of the peace and acts of aggression. Resolution 242 does not fit into that category of a chapter VII resolution as no one considered Israel the aggressor in the 6 day war.

Instead resolution 242 was adopted under category VI of the UN charter. Therefor Israel was assigned rights and obligation with respect to the territories its forces had captured in a defensive action

As I recall, ( and I'm looking for the specific language now ) the exact wording was that Israel should withdraw as soon as is practicable to maintain the peace. And that Israel is not required to return all or any land specifically to Jordan but the the surrounding states, of which palestine isn't one as palestine isn't a state.

I'll keep looking through my notes, which are extensive. BRB

 

[theliq]

You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said. And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.

You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said. And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.

The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.

Well if you delved into Jewish history you would be aware that Jews semenally decended from a mixture of Hittites and Arabs...they are not a Semitic people at all......the only Semitic people are the Palestinians...I trust the weather is fine in downtown Tele-Aviv ..Boston

LOL no, First Arab is a language group, not a culture, nationality or ethnicity. As far as the Judaic people being descendants of the hittites, as I recall this idea was first proposed in the 1930s and has never been confirmed and has little supporting evidence. The majority of evidence supports the Judaic people being descendant from the bronze age people known as the Hyksos.

And again with the mythos of palestinians, who you seem to insist are a distance genetic people. Or that seems to be your intent by questioning the origins of the Judaic people. Genetic studies show the palestinians being of general North African descent. A conglomeration of various tribal influences. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, published work ;--) I'd be happy to investigate it.

Best science thus far traces the judaic people back to the Hyksos, a primitive bronze age people living on the outskirts of other more powerful civilizations like the Egyptians of the time. Once again ref. Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bibble Unearthed" and no its not a secular work.

It looks like your argument is comprised of "the Judaic people didn't come from Judea and the various people who filtered into the area after the centuries long demise of the Judaic people are. Sorry but thats almost humorous. And not a shred of supporting data ?

Please lets keep the conversation to demonstrable realities. Wild to the point of comical claims do not advance our conversation or exchange of ideas.

Actually I'm right as usual,considering it was the Canaanites and Moabites that were the original peoples of the Holy Land....you know the peoples that the Jews eliminated to take their land(Sounds a familiar scenario,because that is what you have also been trying to do with the owners the Palestinians up until today)......To claim you are a pure race is putting it mildly...A JOKE......you are not in any way..but you know that already.....Trouble is you Zionists think your corrupt Mantra is fact.....It isn't even real Jews don't believe this errant nonsense......but sadly you do........so much for your Comical Stance.....Joker.....well you may be the Joker but we are not Village Idiots on here,something you should remember when on here.........you are yet another Right Wing Conservative Jew,not revered in Israel but loathed by secular and Ultra Jews...and we all can see why.

There are others on here who have taken us all down this crooked path,to no avail but with some what more interlect

WOW you really might read up on modern archeology before making such claims. There was no ancient exodus from Egypt, There's not a shred of physical evidence to support the story and there was no conquest of the Canaan Valley, again not a shred of physical evidence exists to support that narrative either. Instead it looks far more likely that the Hyksos throughout the Bronze Age lived as a primitive tribe on the outskirts of the Egyptian areas of influence, and when the Egyptians withdrew from the area the Hyksos gradually wandered into the decaying Egyptian farmlands. There's even a series of Egyptian outposts along the Nile valley which are designed to keep these ancients OUT of Egypt during a period of prolonged drought.

You might seriously do a little reading on what modern science says about this history.

Your next assertion is I regret indicative of desperation. The claim is an outright lie. If you could point out where I claimed the Jewish race is "pure" ? Because we both know I never said that. No, you said that in an effort to derail the conversation and take it in directions it was never intended to go with these kind of claims of false prerogatives. We both know I never said that, so really, lets not descend into false insinuations and outright lies rather than discuss these important issues.

Nor am I a zionist. Although I don't take issue with there basic goals. The Judaic people do deserve a slice of their native lands. Thats not really the question. The issue seems to be if the Arabs can ever be satisfied with the ~83% of Judea they ended up with or the 99.9% of Northern Africa. Seems like the Judaic people are having to fight tooth and nail for scraps again and you are still complaining about even that small portion.

Lastly more accusation and outright falsehoods. You seem to be under the false impression I am both in Israel and of the ultra nationalists. Once again you only embarrass yourself with all the false bravado. I am simply sticking up for native rights. Native peoples around the world are watching carefully how the Arabs are responding to a native tribes effort to return to some small scrap of its native homeland. And we are not impressed with the cruelty and brutality of the continued terrorist acts against our native brothers. Just because you might have lost your heritage, doesn't mean we have to lose ours.

Cheers ;--)

Don't be silly,my "live in Israel" was to draw some truth out of you to where you live and what you actually think(I succeeded as usual,a lot of you Jews in the past try to hide where they are from,obviously I need to know what premise you start from)

Jews were not the original peoples of the Holy Land/Palestine

You are a mixture of different peoples,minute in number,today in Israel and the OCCUPIED TERRITORY,over 21% of Israel proper are Palestinians/Arab,this does not include the Arabs from the Golan Heights and other parts swallowed up after the six day war, who were offered Israeli Citizenship but totally refused that offer,of course the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli Citizens

Your assumption and use of subjective archaeology,is totally flawed,of course the Jews eliminated the Canaanites,by the way their Capital was SALEM......now Jew r salem,where you get your info from is a Joke,even Jewish Scholars realize and admit that the Canaanites were there before the Jews invaded.

Lets more forward to David the Userper,who murdered the King of the Jews at the time and eliminated them with the help of the Philistines,who he then eliminated (you see the pattern emerged completely)...........this one of the reasons the now King David was never allowed to consecrate the Temple(HIS BAD DEEDS),this was left to his son........I could pick you prose to pieces and expose your ignorance but I'm not into humiliating people.....I love Bravardo because unlike you I do have a Great Heritage unlike yours a broken violent one,which continues up to today........The Palestinians are a proud people and and although you have tried to divide them........but together will never be defeated,no matter how you try to eliminate them.......The world recognise this clearly,that's why more people support the Palestinians much more than the Israelis,as proven in the UN last year,.See you around,Viva Palestine and Viva Israel......Two State Solution.......unlike you and your mob that only drive forward to an Israel only..and therein lies the vast difference between you and I.........You are just unable to negotiate and compromise......which is a mental disorder,......You are not right at all in the way you think....thankfully there are some wonderful Jews who would/will(Mr Rabin for example and what did you do to him?????YES, YOU MURDERED YOUR OWN PRIME MINISTER)steven

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you asked the questions. I answered them directly.

The method of acquisition was described. A combination of "Declarative" and “Constitutive.” However, as a means of establishing a historical record, they come in handy. Each record is dated.

There is no ducking the question.

I provided the documentation, although documentation IS NOT required using either method. It is a matter of exclusive control.

You are still ducking the question as to the acquisition of territory.

BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

(REFERENCE)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

• 
  ARTICLE 47 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2, para. 4;

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.​

UN General Assembly resolution 2625 of 24 October 1970, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/25/2625.

Khartoum Resolution,

3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.​

(COMMENT)

A couple of point need to be made at this point:

The remaining individual parties to the conflict (Lebanon, Syria) and the non-state quasi-party (Arab Palestinians) have no real intention of breaking away from the Khartoum Resolution in which the Arab League pledged to: "Within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country."

There are such things as Unilateral Exceptions to International Law. It should be noted that the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility has never been adopted or considered for passage into law. While there is a significant portion of Customary Law included in the draft codification, there are many points of contention that are neither Customary (practiced routine and consitantly), or considered advantageous to the rule of law. Some of the major points are simply unenforceable. Article 47, of the GCIV, is one of those points of contention.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations. Source: Encyclopædia Britannica

According to the principle concerning the non-use of force in international relations, as elaborated in the United Nations General Assembly Res 2625 (XXV) (containing the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations), ‘The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force’. In the same document, it is also emphasized that ‘No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal’, corollary recognized by the International Court of Justice as reflecting customary international law, as well as the remaining text of Res 2625 (XXV) concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force. The relevant parts of this Declaration have been recalled in the preamble of UN General Assembly Res 68/262, whereby, on 27 March 2014, the General Assembly has underscored that the referendum favorable to the accession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation ‘…having no legal validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status’ of these entities. Source: The Russian annexation of the Crimea: questions relating to the use of force
by ANTONELLO TANCREDI on May 11, 2014
​

Over the years, since the development of Humanitarian Law (IHL) began in the 19th Century, the net effect of the laws has been either to extend wars in their duration, or add to the complications of enforcement. The IHL and common Charter stipulate that the use of force in relations between states, forced annexation, and colonization are improper. But such laws are routinely exempt from notice when it involves segments of the international population that has extended it fear to coerce an exemption. The Arab Palestinians believe that they are exempt from common law and permitted to carry-out any number of acts in pursuit of their agenda.

No major power is going to go to war with the Russian Federation over the illegal annexation of the Crimea; just as no major powers are going to go to war over the annexation of selected parts of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. While in some circles, the Rule of Annexation is called customary --- it is not so customary that major exemptions are not made.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks, Rocco, Your post put the Palestinians on the legal and moral high ground.

Please respond with any part of that that you think would be a benefit to Israel.

 

[Boston1]

The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.

Well if you delved into Jewish history you would be aware that Jews semenally decended from a mixture of Hittites and Arabs...they are not a Semitic people at all......the only Semitic people are the Palestinians...I trust the weather is fine in downtown Tele-Aviv ..Boston

LOL no, First Arab is a language group, not a culture, nationality or ethnicity. As far as the Judaic people being descendants of the hittites, as I recall this idea was first proposed in the 1930s and has never been confirmed and has little supporting evidence. The majority of evidence supports the Judaic people being descendant from the bronze age people known as the Hyksos.

And again with the mythos of palestinians, who you seem to insist are a distance genetic people. Or that seems to be your intent by questioning the origins of the Judaic people. Genetic studies show the palestinians being of general North African descent. A conglomeration of various tribal influences. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, published work ;--) I'd be happy to investigate it.

Best science thus far traces the judaic people back to the Hyksos, a primitive bronze age people living on the outskirts of other more powerful civilizations like the Egyptians of the time. Once again ref. Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bibble Unearthed" and no its not a secular work.

It looks like your argument is comprised of "the Judaic people didn't come from Judea and the various people who filtered into the area after the centuries long demise of the Judaic people are. Sorry but thats almost humorous. And not a shred of supporting data ?

Please lets keep the conversation to demonstrable realities. Wild to the point of comical claims do not advance our conversation or exchange of ideas.

Actually I'm right as usual,considering it was the Canaanites and Moabites that were the original peoples of the Holy Land....you know the peoples that the Jews eliminated to take their land(Sounds a familiar scenario,because that is what you have also been trying to do with the owners the Palestinians up until today)......To claim you are a pure race is putting it mildly...A JOKE......you are not in any way..but you know that already.....Trouble is you Zionists think your corrupt Mantra is fact.....It isn't even real Jews don't believe this errant nonsense......but sadly you do........so much for your Comical Stance.....Joker.....well you may be the Joker but we are not Village Idiots on here,something you should remember when on here.........you are yet another Right Wing Conservative Jew,not revered in Israel but loathed by secular and Ultra Jews...and we all can see why.

There are others on here who have taken us all down this crooked path,to no avail but with some what more interlect

WOW you really might read up on modern archeology before making such claims. There was no ancient exodus from Egypt, There's not a shred of physical evidence to support the story and there was no conquest of the Canaan Valley, again not a shred of physical evidence exists to support that narrative either. Instead it looks far more likely that the Hyksos throughout the Bronze Age lived as a primitive tribe on the outskirts of the Egyptian areas of influence, and when the Egyptians withdrew from the area the Hyksos gradually wandered into the decaying Egyptian farmlands. There's even a series of Egyptian outposts along the Nile valley which are designed to keep these ancients OUT of Egypt during a period of prolonged drought.

You might seriously do a little reading on what modern science says about this history.

Your next assertion is I regret indicative of desperation. The claim is an outright lie. If you could point out where I claimed the Jewish race is "pure" ? Because we both know I never said that. No, you said that in an effort to derail the conversation and take it in directions it was never intended to go with these kind of claims of false prerogatives. We both know I never said that, so really, lets not descend into false insinuations and outright lies rather than discuss these important issues.

Nor am I a zionist. Although I don't take issue with there basic goals. The Judaic people do deserve a slice of their native lands. Thats not really the question. The issue seems to be if the Arabs can ever be satisfied with the ~83% of Judea they ended up with or the 99.9% of Northern Africa. Seems like the Judaic people are having to fight tooth and nail for scraps again and you are still complaining about even that small portion.

Lastly more accusation and outright falsehoods. You seem to be under the false impression I am both in Israel and of the ultra nationalists. Once again you only embarrass yourself with all the false bravado. I am simply sticking up for native rights. Native peoples around the world are watching carefully how the Arabs are responding to a native tribes effort to return to some small scrap of its native homeland. And we are not impressed with the cruelty and brutality of the continued terrorist acts against our native brothers. Just because you might have lost your heritage, doesn't mean we have to lose ours.

Cheers ;--)

Don't be silly,my live in Israel was to draw some truth out of you to where you live and what you actually think(I succeeded as usual,a lot of you Jews in the past try to hide where they are from,obviously I need to know what premise you start from)

Jews were not the original peoples of the Holy Land/Palestine

You are a mixture of different peoples,minute in number,today in Israel and the OCCUPIED TERRITORY

All I can really say is you are delusional.

Insisting I live somewhere your imagination leads you to believe I live is simply ludicrous

 

[Boston1]

Bingo

well that was a pain in the ass to find in my notes so I just looked it up on the net and took the first hit which just happened to be Wiki

Quote

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

End Quote

So in the end resolution 242 IS NOT BINDING due to Israel's acts being defensive in nature

Which is why Israel is NOT IN VIOLATION of international law for not withdrawing from the disputed territories YET or EVER since resolution 242 IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RECOMENDATION AND NOT A BINDING RESOLUTION

You are batting zero my friend

 

[theliq]

Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.

From your link
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

Quote

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories.

End Quote

So what we have is a question of how combatants are treated vs how civilians are treated within defeated population. In regards to refugees it is the administrators of the refugee camps or the host nations that are responsible for segregating combatants from noncombatants. In the case of the Israeli palestinian conflict it is the responsibility of UNWRA. However, and here's the kicker. UNWRA is very nearly entirely staffed by palestinians who have zero interest in NOT aiding the war effort. THE UN FAILED COMPLETELY AT EVERY TURN TO SEGREGATE COMBATANTS FROM NON COMBATANTS AMONG THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE POPULATION.

This simple fact raises another interesting question. The legal justification of refugee status for much of todays palestinain population. Given that descendants are also considered refugees then the question becomes further complicated. Are descendants of combatants illegally hiding within a refugee population because of the UNs failure to segregate combatant from noncombatants, considered refugees ? Legally the only answer can be a resounding NO. But try and get the UNs pro palestinian organization in charge of palestinian refugees, the UNWRA to cooperate in performing its legal obligations and you quickly find that there is no governing body responsible for overseeing this organizations adherence to the UNs own regulations; THAT IS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE.

Its an interesting element of the bias so evident at the UN.

We have an obvious failure to segregate combatant from noncombatant elements of the palestinian refugee population throughout the ENTIRE conflict.

We have a completely unique situation in which descendants of refugees are also considered refugees, but ONLY when considering palestinian refugees

We have a definition of refugees which completely disregards any semblance of nationality, heritage, lineage, culture, history or indigenous ties to the land.

The list goes on and on

The point is that while you focus on the treatment of refugee populations in occupied lands. It remains a question of WHO QUALIFIES as a refugee. I'd contend that combatants do not qualify and may be detained in prisons until the end of hostilities. Ergo the restrictions placed on some so called refugee populations which might more accurately be described as combatants given that they both individually and collectively support terrorist acts, are perfectly legal under the geneva convention for the treatment of war prisoners

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLES PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

 

[Boston1]

Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.

From your link
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

Quote

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories.

End Quote

So what we have is a question of how combatants are treated vs how civilians are treated within defeated population. In regards to refugees it is the administrators of the refugee camps or the host nations that are responsible for segregating combatants from noncombatants. In the case of the Israeli palestinian conflict it is the responsibility of UNWRA. However, and here's the kicker. UNWRA is very nearly entirely staffed by palestinians who have zero interest in NOT aiding the war effort. THE UN FAILED COMPLETELY AT EVERY TURN TO SEGREGATE COMBATANTS FROM NON COMBATANTS AMONG THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE POPULATION.

This simple fact raises another interesting question. The legal justification of refugee status for much of todays palestinain population. Given that descendants are also considered refugees then the question becomes further complicated. Are descendants of combatants illegally hiding within a refugee population because of the UNs failure to segregate combatant from noncombatants, considered refugees ? Legally the only answer can be a resounding NO. But try and get the UNs pro palestinian organization in charge of palestinian refugees, the UNWRA to cooperate in performing its legal obligations and you quickly find that there is no governing body responsible for overseeing this organizations adherence to the UNs own regulations; THAT IS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE.

Its an interesting element of the bias so evident at the UN.

We have an obvious failure to segregate combatant from noncombatant elements of the palestinian refugee population throughout the ENTIRE conflict.

We have a completely unique situation in which descendants of refugees are also considered refugees, but ONLY when considering palestinian refugees

We have a definition of refugees which completely disregards any semblance of nationality, heritage, lineage, culture, history or indigenous ties to the land.

The list goes on and on

The point is that while you focus on the treatment of refugee populations in occupied lands. It remains a question of WHO QUALIFIES as a refugee. I'd contend that combatants do not qualify and may be detained in prisons until the end of hostilities. Ergo the restrictions placed on some so called refugee populations which might more accurately be described as combatants given that they both individually and collectively support terrorist acts, are perfectly legal under the geneva convention for the treatment of war prisoners

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

Wow, did you forget to take a pill or something ?

This kind of post

Quote

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

End Quote

Is not only indicative of psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance but also of an obviously failed argument.

Actually as far as I can see you failed to present any argument.

I might recommend you review the data presented and reformulate your argument.

 

[theliq]

Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.

From your link
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

Quote

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories.

End Quote

So what we have is a question of how combatants are treated vs how civilians are treated within defeated population. In regards to refugees it is the administrators of the refugee camps or the host nations that are responsible for segregating combatants from noncombatants. In the case of the Israeli palestinian conflict it is the responsibility of UNWRA. However, and here's the kicker. UNWRA is very nearly entirely staffed by palestinians who have zero interest in NOT aiding the war effort. THE UN FAILED COMPLETELY AT EVERY TURN TO SEGREGATE COMBATANTS FROM NON COMBATANTS AMONG THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE POPULATION.

This simple fact raises another interesting question. The legal justification of refugee status for much of todays palestinain population. Given that descendants are also considered refugees then the question becomes further complicated. Are descendants of combatants illegally hiding within a refugee population because of the UNs failure to segregate combatant from noncombatants, considered refugees ? Legally the only answer can be a resounding NO. But try and get the UNs pro palestinian organization in charge of palestinian refugees, the UNWRA to cooperate in performing its legal obligations and you quickly find that there is no governing body responsible for overseeing this organizations adherence to the UNs own regulations; THAT IS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE.

Its an interesting element of the bias so evident at the UN.

We have an obvious failure to segregate combatant from noncombatant elements of the palestinian refugee population throughout the ENTIRE conflict.

We have a completely unique situation in which descendants of refugees are also considered refugees, but ONLY when considering palestinian refugees

We have a definition of refugees which completely disregards any semblance of nationality, heritage, lineage, culture, history or indigenous ties to the land.

The list goes on and on

The point is that while you focus on the treatment of refugee populations in occupied lands. It remains a question of WHO QUALIFIES as a refugee. I'd contend that combatants do not qualify and may be detained in prisons until the end of hostilities. Ergo the restrictions placed on some so called refugee populations which might more accurately be described as combatants given that they both individually and collectively support terrorist acts, are perfectly legal under the geneva convention for the treatment of war prisoners

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

Wow, did you forget to take a pill or something ?

This kind of post

Quote

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

End Quote

Is not only indicative of psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance but also of an obviously failed argument.

Actually as far as I can see you failed to present any argument.

I might recommend you review the data presented and reformulate your argument.

I never go back because I'm right of course, moreover why do you desire me to some how compensate for your Banality......sorry I stand unmoved by your request,as it would make me as Barmy as you,if I did..................but keep trying if you wish

 

[theliq]

Bingo

well that was a pain in the ass to find in my notes so I just looked it up on the net and took the first hit which just happened to be Wiki

Quote

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

End Quote

So in the end resolution 242 IS NOT BINDING due to Israel's acts being defensive in nature

Which is why Israel is NOT IN VIOLATION of international law for not withdrawing from the disputed territories YET or EVER since resolution 242 IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RECOMENDATION AND NOT A BINDING RESOLUTION

You are batting zero my friend

Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert

 

[Boston1]

Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.

From your link
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

Quote

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories.

End Quote

So what we have is a question of how combatants are treated vs how civilians are treated within defeated population. In regards to refugees it is the administrators of the refugee camps or the host nations that are responsible for segregating combatants from noncombatants. In the case of the Israeli palestinian conflict it is the responsibility of UNWRA. However, and here's the kicker. UNWRA is very nearly entirely staffed by palestinians who have zero interest in NOT aiding the war effort. THE UN FAILED COMPLETELY AT EVERY TURN TO SEGREGATE COMBATANTS FROM NON COMBATANTS AMONG THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE POPULATION.

This simple fact raises another interesting question. The legal justification of refugee status for much of todays palestinain population. Given that descendants are also considered refugees then the question becomes further complicated. Are descendants of combatants illegally hiding within a refugee population because of the UNs failure to segregate combatant from noncombatants, considered refugees ? Legally the only answer can be a resounding NO. But try and get the UNs pro palestinian organization in charge of palestinian refugees, the UNWRA to cooperate in performing its legal obligations and you quickly find that there is no governing body responsible for overseeing this organizations adherence to the UNs own regulations; THAT IS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE.

Its an interesting element of the bias so evident at the UN.

We have an obvious failure to segregate combatant from noncombatant elements of the palestinian refugee population throughout the ENTIRE conflict.

We have a completely unique situation in which descendants of refugees are also considered refugees, but ONLY when considering palestinian refugees

We have a definition of refugees which completely disregards any semblance of nationality, heritage, lineage, culture, history or indigenous ties to the land.

The list goes on and on

The point is that while you focus on the treatment of refugee populations in occupied lands. It remains a question of WHO QUALIFIES as a refugee. I'd contend that combatants do not qualify and may be detained in prisons until the end of hostilities. Ergo the restrictions placed on some so called refugee populations which might more accurately be described as combatants given that they both individually and collectively support terrorist acts, are perfectly legal under the geneva convention for the treatment of war prisoners

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

Wow, did you forget to take a pill or something ?

This kind of post

Quote

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

End Quote

Is not only indicative of psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance but also of an obviously failed argument.

Actually as far as I can see you failed to present any argument.

I might recommend you review the data presented and reformulate your argument.

I never go back because I'm right of course, moreover why do you desire me to some how compensate for your Banality......sorry I stand unmoved by your request,as it would make me as Barmy as you,if I did..................but keep trying if you wish

OK so you refuse to review the data presented and you insist on engaging in personal insults.

I believe this tactic is indicative of a psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance.

Need I explain the symptoms and behaviors typical of this condition ?

The simple reality is the argument has gone beyond your limited knowledge concerning this subject and you find yourself faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to your preferred beliefs. Rather than be willing to modify your beliefs to embrace the facts you instead are lashing out in anger and frustration.

I really can't help you in this regard and might suggest professional help. Meantime I am curious if you are able to allow the less emotionally involved among us to continue the conversation in peace ?

 

[Boston1]

Bingo

well that was a pain in the ass to find in my notes so I just looked it up on the net and took the first hit which just happened to be Wiki

Quote

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

End Quote

So in the end resolution 242 IS NOT BINDING due to Israel's acts being defensive in nature

Which is why Israel is NOT IN VIOLATION of international law for not withdrawing from the disputed territories YET or EVER since resolution 242 IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RECOMENDATION AND NOT A BINDING RESOLUTION

You are batting zero my friend

Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert

Again you are lashing out against all factual evidence. UNSC 242 is a non binding resolution SUGGESTING Israel withdraw from the DISPUTED territories. The area was LOST in an AGGRESSIVE ARAB ACT against the peaceful Israeli people. Ergo the UN was constrained to pass this resolution under article VI instead of the binding article VII. Capiche ?

No land was stolen, it is being administered by the israeli's until a peaceful solution can be established exactly in accord with the SUGGESTED resolution.

:--)

 

[Shusha]

Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert

Perhaps you will finally be the one, after 30 pages, to tell us to whom those territories belong and which legal instrument lays this out and defines the boundaries of that territory. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Boston1]

Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert

Perhaps you will finally be the one, after 30 pages, to tell us to whom those territories belong and which legal instrument lays this out and defines the boundaries of that territory. But I won't hold my breath.

I'm beginning to suspect that LIQs posts/opinions aren't based in any factual review of the history of events.

 

[theliq]

Bingo

well that was a pain in the ass to find in my notes so I just looked it up on the net and took the first hit which just happened to be Wiki

Quote

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

End Quote

So in the end resolution 242 IS NOT BINDING due to Israel's acts being defensive in nature

Which is why Israel is NOT IN VIOLATION of international law for not withdrawing from the disputed territories YET or EVER since resolution 242 IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RECOMENDATION AND NOT A BINDING RESOLUTION

You are batting zero my friend

Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert

Again you are lashing out against all factual evidence. UNSC 242 is a non binding resolution SUGGESTING Israel withdraw from the DISPUTED territories. The area was LOST in an AGGRESSIVE ARAB ACT against the peaceful Israeli people. Ergo the UN was constrained to pass this resolution under article VI instead of the binding article VII. Capiche ?

No land was stolen, it is being administered by the israeli's until a peaceful solution can be established exactly in accord with the SUGGESTED resolution.

:--)

What a peaceful solution so that all the Palestinian Lands are kept by Israel....Yeah sure that is why you have and are building Jewish towns on the Palestinian Land......You are full of Shit.....but we are not so gullible