Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you've made this point before.

The use of force by one state against another is generally NOT permissible under international law. If force is used or threatened, (as in the threat and use of force by HAMAS against Israel) however, states have an inherent right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter (Chapter VII). Article 51 supports , Article 2(7) (Chapter I) which provides that the UN shall not intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member state.

The question you (P F Tinmore) put forth is profound, in that if Israel does not exist as an independent, self-governing and Sovereign State, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is essentially a civil war between constituent faction. Thus, the UN would have no Jurisdiction within either the territory know as Israel or the territory known as Palestine as in that recognized by the UN as sovereign territory to each. [See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine.]

International humanitarian law (IHL) distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first treaty-based, permanent international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators like the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) from conducting indiscriminate attacks (Rule #11 Customary IHL) of the most serious crimes of international concern. The importance of this fact is in the Jurisdiction and defined prohibition under the Geneva Convention. In Additional Protocol II (pertaining to NIACs) does not contain this the equivalent of Rule #11 (Indiscriminate Attacks) whereas Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I (pertaining to IACs) does. Even though it has been argued that it is included by inference within the prohibition against making the civilian population the object of attack contained in Article 13(2).

Similarly, the ICCs Elements of the Offense for Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians includes: The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).

It is also important to note that relative to Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer: The Elements of the Offense also include the requirement that the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).

THUS: If the claim that it is not an International Conflict or an NAIC in character, the ICC will not consider prosecution for some of the basic complaints presented by the Palestinians against the Israelis.

If, on the other hand, the character of the conflict is considered an IAC character, then all the HAMAS attacks (in deed all Palestinian attacks in/on Israel) are international in flavor and the both the criminal code and the terrorism laws are very much applicable. And that would make the entire data dump of Palestinian Attacks subject to prsecution for the hostile conduct in the attempt to intimidate and coerce Israelis in the furtherance of Palestinian political agendas.

I'm sure we went through this all once before.

Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.

I think that Israel's claim to territory is merely say so without any documentation to back up that assertion. You have avoided a fact based discussion on this issue.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish People followed the UN recommendations pertaining to the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Borders are boundary lines that are recognized as marking a territory under which a sovereign entity has established and maintained control. If the Israelis defend it as a border, then it is a border, without regard to any argument the Palestinians may further. If the marked it, control it and govern it, then it is theirs.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question you (P F Tinmore) put forth is profound, in that if Israel does not exist as an independent, self-governing and Sovereign State, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is essentially a civil war between constituent faction.​

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

1) the mandate just enacted the Balfour declaration

2) the mandate delineated the area for the Jewish NATIONal home

3) the arab league did not like that so declared war

4) the arab muslims tried to take by force all the land and failed

5) the mandate was not allowed to run its course because of arab violence

6) the British could no longer afford to police Palestine and handed the reigns over to the UN

7) the Jews declared independence from the mandate under the terms of the mandate.

8) the UN accepted the declaration and Israel was formed LEGALLY

9) the arab league invaded with the intention of wiping out the Jews and taking the land of Israel for themselves.

10) The UN stopped the Jews from dealing the arab league a thrashing and setting them back 1000 years.

11) under international laws of 1923 and 1949 the land was Jewish and the arab muslims had no legal right to it

Clear enough for you, now try and refute the above 11 facts one at a time with links to unbiased sources.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah and this is how the discussion diverts from terrorism in context, to a border argument; the Palestinians Claim that Israel and all territory formerly under the Mandate is the sovereign territory of Palestine.

How many of these attacks were outside Palestinian borders?

What response are the Palestinians allowed for things like this?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians, fail to recognize the state of Israel. They make this ridiculous assertion that territory to which Israel maintains sovereignty is somehow Palestinian Territory. When in fact the Arab Palestinian has not had sovereignty ever over the territory.

But I digress, the conversation was suppose to about "ICC Criminal Code violations."

If you want to change the topic, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.

I think that Israel's claim to territory is merely say so without any documentation to back up that assertion. You have avoided a fact based discussion on this issue.

Depends on the scenario as you could kill someone in your home who was there legally, then it would be aggressive.

I have given the documentation that show that Israel owns the land and you choose to ignore it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship.​

You didn't read my post.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship.​

You didn't read my post.

That might have been the case back before 1931, but once the arab league became involved they introduced 5 other nations into the equation. This resulted in it becoming an illegal all out war which goes against the UN charter and resolutions and the UN should have sent heavily armed troops in to put down the rabid arab dogs once and for all. Then told the Palestinians that they had lost any chance they had of any land in Jewish Palestine and to pack their bags and go.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.​

How so?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

You didn't read my post.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

How so?

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.​

How so?

Because the UN cant call the shots anymore and they will have to stay out of the thrashing the Palestinians would get from Israel. And it would meant that Israel could legally acquire the land and it would not be gained through violent action as it is already theirs. No UN resolutions would apply and every one on the books would need to be removed completely. If you cant see that then you are a bigger fool that we thought you where.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

You didn't read my post.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

How so?

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then you are just being obstinate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

You didn't read my post.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

How so?

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

(COMMENT)

If you don't see the difference between the two recognitions, and you don't see the difference between NIAC and IAC, then your are just not capable of comprehending.

The two cannot be in the same place and simultaneously be an IAC. And the two cannot be NIAC and still subject to War Crime (Article 8) Investigations by the ICC. You simply cannot have both be true. Israel and Palestine are separate recognitions and separate sovereignties; not co-located.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then you are just being obstinate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

You didn't read my post.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

How so?

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

(COMMENT)

If you don't see the difference between the two recognitions, and you don't see the difference between NIAC and IAC, then your are just not capable of comprehending.

The two cannot be in the same place and simultaneously be an IAC. And the two cannot be NIAC and still subject to War Crime (Article 8) Investigations by the ICC. You simply cannot have both be true. Israel and Palestine are separate recognitions and separate sovereignties; not co-located.

Most Respectfully,
R

Links?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I already gave you all the links.

Then you are just being obstinate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

You didn't read my post.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

How so?

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

(COMMENT)

If you don't see the difference between the two recognitions, and you don't see the difference between NIAC and IAC, then your are just not capable of comprehending.

The two cannot be in the same place and simultaneously be an IAC. And the two cannot be NIAC and still subject to War Crime (Article 8) Investigations by the ICC. You simply cannot have both be true. Israel and Palestine are separate recognitions and separate sovereignties; not co-located.

Most Respectfully,
R

Links?

(COMMENT)

Posting #972 has the links to the Elements of the Offense, (See Article * War Crimes). See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine. See the ICRC Resource Center for the definitions of a IAC and NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.​

You have never shown where that is false.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I already gave you all the links.

Then you are just being obstinate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

You didn't read my post.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

How so?

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

(COMMENT)

If you don't see the difference between the two recognitions, and you don't see the difference between NIAC and IAC, then your are just not capable of comprehending.

The two cannot be in the same place and simultaneously be an IAC. And the two cannot be NIAC and still subject to War Crime (Article 8) Investigations by the ICC. You simply cannot have both be true. Israel and Palestine are separate recognitions and separate sovereignties; not co-located.

Most Respectfully,
R

Links?

(COMMENT)

Posting #972 has the links to the Elements of the Offense, (See Article * War Crimes). See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine. See the ICRC Resource Center for the definitions of a IAC and NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of those define land, territory, or borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just as the Soviet Union is no more, --- the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is no more, and Czechoslovakia dissolved into the Czech Republic and Slovakian, --- so it is with the Mandate era Palestine --- it is no more.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.​

You have never shown where that is false.

(COMMENT)

Read the recognitions for which I gave you the links. Palestine, as defined by the Palestine Order in Council, is no more. It is no longer an entity that exists from the river to the sea, and from north to south. It is composed of the territories described in A/RES/68/12 Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations.

"Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;"
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is what it is.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I already gave you all the links.

Then you are just being obstinate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I think it is the other way around. You did not read and comprehend.

(COMMENT)

It doesn't matter what happened, as a cause for the conflict, or a prelude to self determination, both sides had Palestinian Citizenship from the exact same source of authority.

(COMMENT)

The Mantra says that all of the territory to which the Mandate applied is all one geo-political entity "(Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south )." If that is true, then all the combatants reside in that single geo-political entity. That means that it is a "non-international armed conflict (NIAC)." If that is the case then --- there are many "alleged war crimes" (Article 8 issues) that by definition could not have occur because one of the elements to the offense for most "war crimes" is that "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict " (IAC).

However, I think that since the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN itself, allowed the State of Palestine to sign on to various treaties, and under treaty law, that can only be done by "states," then for all intent and purposes Israel is not part of Palestine, and Palestine is not part of Israel; and they are each recognized separately. That make any conflict between the two an IAC.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable. It also makes the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), as a government sponsored party, subject to the various Customary International Humanitarian Laws. And that would also make the Palestinian Mantra invalid.

Most Respectfully,
R

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

(COMMENT)

If you don't see the difference between the two recognitions, and you don't see the difference between NIAC and IAC, then your are just not capable of comprehending.

The two cannot be in the same place and simultaneously be an IAC. And the two cannot be NIAC and still subject to War Crime (Article 8) Investigations by the ICC. You simply cannot have both be true. Israel and Palestine are separate recognitions and separate sovereignties; not co-located.

Most Respectfully,
R

Links?

(COMMENT)

Posting #972 has the links to the Elements of the Offense, (See Article * War Crimes). See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine. See the ICRC Resource Center for the definitions of a IAC and NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of those define land, territory, or borders.

(COMMENT)

You can believe what you want. Your criteria is not the determining factor of any peaceful settlement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just as the Soviet Union is no more, --- the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is no more, and Czechoslovakia dissolved into the Czech Republic and Slovakian, --- so it is with the Mandate era Palestine --- it is no more.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can use that logic if you want; for all the good that it will do you.

You are correct in one respect. The term "civil war" is not a term with a legal description. The correct terms are "international armed conflicts" (IAC), and "non-international armed conflicts (NIAC);" as discussed in Posting #972.

Civil War is a historical term used to describe a conflict between factions holding the same citizenship; or, a war between citizens of the same country. In this case we are talking about two factions in conflict holding the same Palestinian Citizenship. The nature, dispute, or proximate cause of the "Civil War" (emancipation, self-determination, immigration, cessions etc) has no being as to the character description. The conflict between the two factions with the same citizenship, was aggravated by the external interference by the Arab League; creating an Article 51 Self-Defense Issue. But you are free to alter the meaning of the term in any fashion you want.

Close but no cigar.

The "civil war" was a say so thing. Here is why.

What is the meaning of the "homeland of the Jews?" According to the Mandate the Jews would immigrate to Palestine and get Palestinian citizenship. They would live among the Palestinians and enjoy the rights of citizenship like living anywhere they liked in Palestine.

This is classic immigration. This is what the Mandate specified. This is not what happened.

The foreign Zionists got foreign money and created colonies. They imported Jews by the boatload to populate their colonies with the stated goal of taking over Palestine and creating a Jewish state. They had their own institutions and government, including their own military, that were separate from Palestine.

When the Zionist colonial project moved against the native population to create their Jewish state, it was not a "civil war."

(COMMENT)

The point of the discussion was the impact of the Palestinian Mantra.

MANTRA:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

If, in fact, the Mantra is correct, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is of an NAIC complexion. And that poses serious problems and consequences for the Palestinians.

But the fact that the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have signed treaties, and entered into international agreements, voiding the NAIC concept and making the IAC the rule of the day. And so, the Mantra is wrong and invalid given what has evolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.​

You have never shown where that is false.

(COMMENT)

Read the recognitions for which I gave you the links. Palestine, as defined by the Palestine Order in Council, is no more. It is no longer an entity that exists from the river to the sea, and from north to south. It is composed of the territories described in A/RES/68/12 Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations.

"Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;"
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Read the recognitions for which I gave you the links. Palestine, as defined by the Palestine Order in Council, is no more. It is no longer an entity that exists from the river to the sea, and from north to south.​

That is not what Britain said when it left Palestine.

What else you got?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is what it is.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I already gave you all the links.

Then you are just being obstinate.

This puts all the international terrorism and counter-terrorism documentation in play and applicable.​

You still have not shown where Israel and Palestine are not in the same place.

(COMMENT)

If you don't see the difference between the two recognitions, and you don't see the difference between NIAC and IAC, then your are just not capable of comprehending.

The two cannot be in the same place and simultaneously be an IAC. And the two cannot be NIAC and still subject to War Crime (Article 8) Investigations by the ICC. You simply cannot have both be true. Israel and Palestine are separate recognitions and separate sovereignties; not co-located.

Most Respectfully,
R

Links?

(COMMENT)

Posting #972 has the links to the Elements of the Offense, (See Article * War Crimes). See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine. See the ICRC Resource Center for the definitions of a IAC and NAIC.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of those define land, territory, or borders.

(COMMENT)

You can believe what you want. Your criteria is not the determining factor of any peaceful settlement.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not what I "believe."

None of those define land, territory, or borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

 

[Hollie]

Who are the Pal'istanians?

70 virgins for Martyrs, preached to kids at Al-Aqsa Mosque summer camp