How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by DennisTate, Jan 2, 2018.

?

How can the rockets be stopped from landing on Sderot, Israel?

  1. a U.S. Military FEL...or FREE ELECTRON LASER system

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  2. a series of low cost reality plus semi-reality science fiction films

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Israel must go back to her 1967 borders for starters....

    5 vote(s)
    38.5%
  4. God's Peace Plan for the Holy Land by Robert Mendelson

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  5. Poll the Bermigo Plan by Mr. Gordon Miller

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Other.... please be specific in a reply.....

    6 vote(s)
    46.2%
  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just view that last line as about as rude and disrespectful as one could possibly get.

    Palestinians had government. There is NO question about that. The UN was considering only the idea of there being a single western style government for the region that they planned on stealing.

    Suggesting that imposing a totally new government on Palestinians, overthrowing their own governments, invalidating their possession of property, etc. is a "no harm, no foul" situation could not be more idiotic.

    There wasn't so much as a discussion.

    Palestinians lost their whole way of life with ZERO consideration that they even existed.

    The parallels with what we Americans did to our first peoples is significant. We didn't consider their governments, their possessions, or even just their humanity when we stole from them whatever the heck we wanted to steal. And, that is exactly what we did to Palestinians - with you pretending there was no down side!!!

    Unbelievable!
     
  2. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is such a thing, since UNGA voted Palestine is based on the 1967 borders with 177 countries for and only 44 against.
     
  3. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Solution Critique
    ⁜→ notme, et al,

    (QUESTION)

    ◈. The UNGA does not make law. Non-binding resolutions are just that → "non-binding" and "unenforceable."

    ◈. When did the UN set 1967 borders? Is there some agreement that the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to (Law of Treaties)?

    ◈. Just who created the 1967 border.

    ◈ International Criminal Law says:

    PART 3. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
    GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

    Article 22
    Nullum crimen sine lege

    •. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

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

    •. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.​

    Article 23
    Nulla poena sine lege

    •. A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute.​

    Article 24
    Non-retroactivity ratione personae

    •. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

    •. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.​

    When did these (so-called) ruling or binding agreements go into effect? (Was it prior to the entry into force?). Do we all interpret these agreements the same way (universally understood? Or is there som ambiguity?


    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, now we know about international law as it applies to persons.

    But, that's not what covers human rights atrocities by one country against another.

    Do you think there will come a time when Palestinians will accept behavior such as ethnic cleansing or being locked in an open air prison such as Gaza, under what are universally considered multiple acts of war against them?

    Do you think Americans would accept that from a foreign power, in light of our own founding documents and our own reaction to simply being taxed without representation?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2021
  5. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proclaiming a country is not making a law.

    Why should there be an agreement? All the countries of the world had a vote on it and Israel has no veto in the UNGA. Nobody does.

    You can look that up yourself.



    There was no crime, so why drag in that part of the criminal court?
     
  6. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Solution Critique
    ⁜→ notme, WillReadmore, et al,

    I am not an attorney and this is just my opinion, based on experience.

    (FOR WillReadmore)

    (COMMENT)

    EXCERPT FROM Office of the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Issues related to General Assembly resolution 67/19 on the status of Palestine in the United Nation. 11 DEC 2012


    Please note the passage in the first paragraph, sentence 2: "Palestine was not identified as a state or a country nor could its authorities be identified as a government."
    upload_2021-6-22_14-29-16.png

    (COMMENT)

    Under the 1933 Montevideo Convention,
    ARTICLE 2


    "The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law."

    (COMMENT)

    Under the 1933 Montevideo Convention,
    ARTICLE 1


    The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

    In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem, a couple of things happened that need to be taken into account.

    upload_2021-6-22_13-5-4.png
    As you can see on the timeline:
    1. Israel has "effective control" continuity, over sovereign Jordanian Territory,
    2. On 30 July 88,
    ◈ Jordan cuts all ties with the West Bank, including Jerusalem,
    ◈ Israel still has effective control,
    ◈ There is no Arab Palestinian Government,​
    3, The three elements (supra) in essence, place the territory in the hands of the Israelis.
    ◈ Condition of Territory on 1 August 1988 becomes "terra nullius."​

    (COMMENT)

    There were no borders set in 1967. The Green Line was a boundary separating the Israeli Force from Jordanian Forces. This was effective through the Armistice Agreement. Article XII(2) of the Armistice states in part: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved". The peaceful settlement (Treaty) between Israel and Jordan was achieved. Treaty between Israel and Jordan (1994) so stated in Article 3 - International Boundary, with the description of the delimitation in Annex 1. On 26 Oct 1994 when the ISRAEL-JORDAN PEACE TREATY went into effect, the green line dissolved.

    IMPORTANT
    The Armistice itself states: Article VI(9) The Armistice Demarcation Lines
    defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties
    without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines
    or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

    (COMMENT)

    Well, I sort of made the assumption that if Israel totally dismissed any Arab Palestinian claim, that they would take it to the International Criminal Court (ICC) since the Court has ruled it has jurisdiction. I only suspect that the opposing view to the Israeli position might take the position pursuant to Article 8 bis Crime of Aggression,
    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

    (∑)

    I probably have overlooked some criticism that needs to be addressed. If I did, I apologize. Point it out and I will clarify. I never intend to be "rude" - it is just my Asperger's Syndrome bleeding out.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 22, 2021
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,264
    Likes Received:
    18,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would say barrage guns they're able to shoot down missiles coming for ships or just annihilate every military edifice on the other side of the wall.
     
  8. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ et al,

    BLUF: Political capitulation (folding to Arab Palestinian demands to return to the 4 JUNE 1967 Armistice Lines) is not the answer.

    (COMMENT)

    Once Israel were to surrender the West Bank to the Arab Palestinians, it will imprint on the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) that the rocket and mortar attacks is a viable strategy against the Israelis.

    Once Israel were to surrender the West Bank to the Arab Palestinians, it brings HoAP controlled launch sites closer to Israeli targets and more vulnerable to weapons, do to range, are not currently effective.

    There is absolutely no reason to suggest that the HoAP will be satisfied with the Armistice Lines as a demarcation for any significant length of time. They certain were not satisfied with the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (2005). The attacks continued and gradually increased to the point that Israeli security barriers had to be improved and security in depth was required. By 2009 the Israelis had to issue the 1/2009 Notice to Mariners of the Blockade on the Gaza Strip.

    ◈ Once Israel were to surrender the West Bank to the Arab Palestinians, it become unrecoverable because the HoAP have successfully ignore the International Humanitarian Laws concerning the:​

    ✦ locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas
    ✦ remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives
    ✦ utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, immune from Israeli strikes - or - for fear of unsustainable critisism from the international community.
    ◈ Once the territory is ceded and Israel has yielded by formally surrender the territory, all of the major Israeli population centers become susceptible to indirect attacks by the simplest of weaponry.
    It is the duty of any government (including Israel) to act in the best interest of the citizenry it serves. Given the risk and the current threat level announced by the HoAP, it would be irresponsible and tantamount to a callus disregard for the lives and pursuits of the Israeli people and jeopardize the the status of the Jewish National Home.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2021
  9. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It clearly says it's a non-member observer state. So they acknowledge it as a state, that is not a member of the UN, while it is allowed to observe in the UN what goes on.
    You're welcome.



    The General Assembly worked the defined territory out:
    Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

    https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B


    Uh, nooo. The PLO is the government of Palestina and Israel is the occupying power.


    The General Assembly pulled that dissolved green line out of the archives. They are the authority to recognize a countries borders for the sake to apply international law and this goes in disregard what other countries think when they object.
     
  10. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ et al,

    BLUF: General Assembly Resolutions are NON-BINDING recommendations. Security Council Resolutions ad BINDING. The exceptions are when the Resolution has an International Convention to it.

    Article 10 • Chapter IV: The General Assembly • UN CHARTER
    The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.

    Page 238 • General Assembly • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law
    art. 17. Otherwise, General Assembly resolutions normally only have the force of recommendations for Member States and are therefore not legally binding. However, certain resolutions may acquire binding effect indirectly by virtue of their evolution into or crystallization as customary international law (see customary law, international).​

    (COMMENT)

    I know that many people believe a General Assembly (GA) Resolution is binding on its members. But a standalone resolution is a recommendation or a record of the will of the membership. GA Resolutions er

    Without regard to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012, decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status, but the General Assembly maintained the status of the "role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice." The ICJ held that the General Assembly could authorize peacekeeping forces as long as such forces were not concerned with enforcement action.

    The 1949 Armistice Lines were not set in stone as a boundary. The 1949 Armistice Line between HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL:
    GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
    was an agreement entered into by Colonel Ahmed Sudki EL-JUNDI and Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed MAAYTE For and on behalf of the Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom - and - Reuven SHILOAH and Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe DAYAN For and on behalf of the Government of Israel. The Argument that the General Assembly can unilaterally alter the

    ◈ Intent of Armistice,
    ◈ Unilaterally reassign territorial control,
    ◈ Intrusively establish or disestablish sovereignty,​

    → is absolutely ridicules! When, in the history of either the UN or, its predecessor the League of Nations, ever done such a thing?

    The customary Rules of Law (RoL) that covers this today are:

    • Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

    • Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
    Remember: Israel did not occupy "Palestinian Territory." Israel took effective control of territory that was under Jordanian sovereignty and maintained under Jordanian Law. Again, the RoL is:

    • States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
    (COMMENT)

    The General Assembly has no such authority. Just as Tibet (China), the Crimea (Russia v Ukraine), or the area of the South China Sea (China). And who can forget the ongoing conflict over Kashmir (India 'v' Pakistan) or the Kurdish Rebels with Turkey.

    No country in the world is going to relinquish sovereign rights and control to the UN General Assembly. And in terms of recognition, the UN recognition is only relative to the organization. The UN has no say over non-aligned nations. Further, under the Convention on Rights and Duties of State, the following is true.

    ◈ The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. This would include the UN.​

    ◈ Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. This would include its territorial boundaries.

    ◈ The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state. The UN does not need to vote (express) on the existence or the borders of Israel. If you stop at a border control point to get a stamp in your passport, or you recognize the authority of Israels Customs and Immigration rules and law, then you are exercising tacit approval. If you recognize the territorial sovereignty of the Israeli Embassy, then you recognize Israel. If you recognize the nest as the seat of Government for Israel, then you recognize Jerusalem as the Capitol.​

    Just my two cents (OK quarters) worth,
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2021
  11. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113


    The enlarging of the UN and who is a state and who is not, is part of it's evolution. An individual nation is can refuse to recognize whatever country they wish. But when complaining at the UN, or more specifically at the UN international criminal court ... you're no longer able to deny it. And in fact, Palestine can go to the ICC and file complaints against other member states. Israel and co gave it a try and challenged it. They lost and subsequently the Israeli policies for their settlement is under investigation since march 2021.



    I never said it was binding for it's members. It is however binding for any topic within the UN where things that matter are discussed.

    Oh dude. Stop it. The annexation of the WB by Jordan was a forcible act, and so it's an illegal act. It can only made legit if it gets internationally recognized and it never was. So since it never was legally part of Jordan, it means Jordan never was able to concede it to Israel in any kind of peace deal. Israel is simply the occupying power. Hence The International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power". The end. Stop the sham.

    No country with the help of a handful of cronies get to decide what belongs to who. We got international law for it. And they have spoken about this case. Grow up.
     
  12. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ et al,

    BLUF: It is extremely important for the Arab Palestinian that the international community recognize the Arab Palestinians as having a

    (COMMENT)

    Government [an Organization of Public Power (OPP)] is a prerequisite basic building block in any given territory. This government is an essential and necessary precursor to the formation of a "State." However, a government is not a "state" in and by itself. The "Government of Palestine" • which was established under the authority of the Mandate • was not a "state." But is the recognized aspect that is held accountable for its obligation as used in Judgment #5 by the Permanent International Court of Justice (PCIJ) (first Paragraph of the Judgment on page 7).

    (COMMENT)

    Yes, I agrree, that the UN General Assembly may discuss and topic under its protocols. But the question is: What binding, judicial, convention or treaty has Israel violated.

    (COMMENT)

    This is 100% wrong.

    The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

    (COMMENT)

    The only sham here is the desperate attempt by pro-Arab Palestinians to establish a territorial claim.

    The fact is that, no matter what manner of control the Jordanians you ascribe to the territory held by the Jordanian - establish under the 1949 Armistice, it was not in the hand of the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; not in 1948, not in 1949, not in 1967 and not in 1988 when the Jordanians cut all ties to the territorial claims and holding west of the Jordan River. It was under the effective control of the State of Israel.

    [/quote]
    (COMMENT)

    I agree! A "handful of cronies" did not decide, in the case of the disposition of the territories, former under the effective control of Jordan.

    But the term "government" may be applied to any political authority, whether the central authority of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, or the Arab League, is viewed as a de facto government.

    A state is another echelon above a government. The requirement of territory does not
    require either Israel, West Bank Palestinians, Jerusalem Palestinians, of Gaza Palestinians to have undisputed borders. It only requires a reasonable claim of consistency in control. The border of the State of Israel may be in dispute, but the is no question as to the territory and the sovereign consistency. In the "Question of Palestine" • specifically the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, what entity has the consistency of territorial control:

    ◈ The Ramallah Government or the State of Palestine as represented by the
    Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority (Oslo Accords)

    ◈ The 2005 President of the State of Palestine (Fatah Party)

    ◈ Hamas (Islamic Resistance) as the duly elected party since 2005

    ◈ The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole representative of the Palestinian People. ​

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) has ruled on jurisdiction. Not on the matter of Statehood. Customary Law on the matter of boundaries, particularly in contemporary times, are resolved between the engaged parties. China was resolute on Tibet, the Russian Federation was resolute on Crimea, Kashmere is still being fought over by India and Pakistan. The situation over Iraq attempting to annex Kuwait was resolved by the Coalition Forces. No international Court was instrumental in the outcomes.

    See the map and lists of All Countries That Have Ongoing Territorial Disputes With Others.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, the UNSC has certified Palestine as qualified as a state. Such evaluations are the official duty of the UNSC and must be completed befor a state is considered for statehood by the UN.

    Whether or not Palestine qualified as a state at some earlier date is a question for history, not an evaluation of the current situation.

    Also, punishment of a people for past bad acts is not considered legitimate in any law. One CAN force the end of bad acts and punish individuals who are found guiltly through court proceedings.

    Thus, there were international court proceedings against specific Nazis aftere WWII for crimes they committed, but there was not punishment against the German people. In fact, we worked to help Germany.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As we saw with Iraq and Afghanistan, UNSC resolutions absolutely can carry force.

    They just have to do so explicitly.

    The UNHRC (human rights council) as addresses about as many resolutions against Israel as they have against all other countries in the world combined.
     
  15. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: An Alternative Observation
    ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

    BLUF: Statehood is NOT declared by the UNSC.

    (COMMENT)

    Pursuant to Rules #134 - #138, Rule of Procedure (A/520/Rev.19), and Article 4, UN Charter, UN Security Council recommends the applicant State for membership, the General Assembly shall consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State. The UN Security Council does not certify statehood.

    (COMMENT)

    Statehood can be achieved by a number of different ways. In these two examples, both were territories subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

    ◈ Non-aligned statehood is something much different from the recommendation UN Security Council. In the case of Israel, the National Council for the Jewish State announced its independence. This independence was achieved with the assistance of the UN Palestine Commission. The UN Palestine Commission helped to establish the backbone of self-governing institutions.

    ◈ A different method is exemplified by the way in which Jordan received independence:

    ARTICLE 1 • TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANS- JORDAN.

    His Majesty The King (Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India) recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.
    There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​


    (COMMENT)

    In general, I agree that the "punishment of a people for past bad acts is not considered legitimate." However, this very fine moral code, was not a customary Rule of Law throughout history. And it certainly does not apply to the Arab Palestinian People for a continuous history of criminal behaviors:

    The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child. ( A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948 )​

    While this particular oath was made seven decades ago, it is an oath still in effect today. Whether or not you look at The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas”
    Policy of Jihad (2017 Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right), or the Palestinian Authority and the policy of Armed Struggle, the essentials of the original "solemn declaration" are still there.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not counter to anything I said, so if you had a point here, please let me know.
    That is absolute nonsense. The question is whether it is legitimate to punish a people for bad acts of a government or for bad acts by some members of that people is not acceptable. Period. It is not a matter of whether that would have been ethical at some earlier time.

    "Wiping them out, man woman and child" is a major humanitarian atrocity. That can NOT be accepted today.

    And, your last sentence is absolute BS. the PA and Hamas have both recognized Israel's permanence as a state within the boundaries of Israel.

    What you said beyond that may have been true at one time, but suggesting it holds true today is absolutely FALSE.

    Hamas conversations with Clinton before 2000 had Hamas officials agreeing that Israel is permanent.

    Your excuse died decades ago.

    Why do Israelis continue to point at that excuse when it is a LIE???
     
  17. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What Israel violated has nothing to do with the UNGA proclaiming that Palestine is a nation. The UNGA made it so. It's within their power. Because of that, the ICJ is able to pick up the complaints made by Palestina about an other nation. Israel complained that the ICJ could not, but they lost the case. So case closed. Palestine is indeed a country with the borders recognized by the UNGA. What you put up doesn't deny this.

    I am correct.
    Your link is only about when a country is an independent state. It doesn't discuss how annexed parts can or can not be part of a state. I previously explained how this all fits. It remains so the WB incl. East Jerusalem never was part of Jordan, since it was take by force and as good as nobody recognized it. So Jordan was not able to give land to Israel that wasn't theirs. Hence the WB incl. East Jerusalem still aint Israeli.

    The entire history is irrelevant. Palestine is a state now. The UNSG recognizes it, and so it is. You can take your grievances to the ICJ. This is how it has been since 2012.

    You drag in things from before 2012 as if they are relevant, while the only thing that matters is the UNGA accepting Palestine as a state since 2012. As for your Iraq "annexing" Kuwait,... it was never recognized to be part of Iraq because it was taken by force. It was at best: occupied by Iraq, so says the world and that is the only thing that matters. It's the same thing with East Jerusalem as well as the entire WB.

    You need to read up how these days a country is able to annex a part of land under international law, without being able to get the label of "just the country being the violent occupier".
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2021
  18. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

    PREFACE: I take an objective view on these issues. And I like to quantize them rather than make broad brush strokes.

    (COMMENT)

    I apologize. I thought you said that: "OK, the UNSC has certified Palestine as qualified as a state." If you did not say this, then I apologize.

    I looked for some UN Security Council "recommendation" or "resolution" on the matter of it being "qualified as a state" → and could not find it. School me! What UN Security Council Resolution was that?

    (COMMENT)

    I cannot think of any effective corrective or punitive action against any state that does not have an adverse impact on the citizenry.
    (COMMENT)

    Well, there is an argument to be made as to actually what the phrase "within the boundaries of Israel" means when various factions say it. So I cancel this out entirely.

    The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a creature of the Oslo Accords. And the Oslo Accords granted Israel full civil control over Area "C."

    The PA (as a quasi-Government) and the Fatah (as a terrorist organization, a political party and resistance) movement are advocates of national, racial, and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence that is prohibited by law.

    (COMMENT)

    You are right (I agree) in that what was true in the deep past is not true today, and whatever policy the PLO, HAMAS and Fatah hold today, may not be true in the future. Truth is not static aspect in the Middle East.

    [/quote]
    (COMMENT)
    .
    Yes, I agree this ("LIE") is an overused and often imprecise term.

    I prefer to use the proper term for the occasion. There are a number of ways to present the idea of false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated. And in most cases (as I see them as an outside observer) it really does not matter if the presentation was intended to deceive or not. The point is, you want to avoid a perception of it being an ad hominem or inciting an adverse emotional response (both being fallacious). It is better to use one of the eight more specific terms:

    ◈ Mistake of fact.
    ◈ Misfeasance
    ◈ Malfeasance
    ◈ Non-feasance
    ◈ Error in judgment
    ◈ Error in assessment
    ◈ Misinformation
    ◈ Corrupted
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  19. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ notme, et al,

    BLUF:

    (COMMENT)

    I disagree. The UN General Assembly does not have the power to proclaim a state. The UNGA may adopt, on application, membership in the UN.

    [I think you meant the International Criminal Court (ICC) and not the International Court of Justice (ICJ)]. "On 5 February 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I decided, by majority, that the Court's territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." It was not until "3 March 2021, the Prosecutor announced the opening of her investigation into the Situation in Palestine."

    In the ICJ Advisory Opinion, "the Court accordingly concluded that there was no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion."
    "The Court concluded by observing that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context, noting the obligation on Israel and Palestine to comply with international humanitarian law, as well as the need for implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and drawing the attention of the General Assembly to the need for efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems on the basis of international law and the establishment of a Palestinian State."​

    The ICJ did not actually say that the 1949 Armistice Lines formed the boundaries of a Palestinian State.

    (COMMENT)

    The actual binding agreement pertaining to annexation is virtually non-existent. There are several modes of territorial acquisition. Remembering of course, that the West Bank and Jerusalem were under the effective control of Jordan, and considered annex by both the Palestinians and the Jordanians. Treaty Law, is probably the best mode of Territorial Acquisition. And when Jordan unilaterally withdrew from the West Bank and Jerusalem, the territory fell into Israeli hands.


    (COMMENT)

    I do not believe that the entirety of the Arab Palestinians can be reset to 2012. Although that would make it much easier for the Israelis.

    Of the many belligerent Territorial Disputes I have glanced over, most of them were handled by ICJ - because Article 38 of the ICJ Statute obligates the court to consider treaties.

    If you reset the clock to 2012, the only territory it has sovereignty over is Areas "A" and "B." But I don't believe the majority of the Israelis want sovereign control over the West Bank. The impact on the government's medical and welfare systems would become an economic burden - an albatross around the neck of the Israelis.

    One more thing. The West Bank and Jerusalem were NOT taken by force. They were abandoned by Jordan and became Israel's problem.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, I blundered here.

    It was not the UNSC that performed the analysis of Palestine to which I referred. The analysis was considered seriously by the UNSC as they addressed the issue of Palestinian statehood, but they themselves did not perform this study nor did some UNSC committee as I now understand it.

    The analysis is identified in the following:
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You start out talking about treaty methods.

    Then, you talk about land "falling into Israeli hands". That's not a treaty. And, it didn't take place with any agreement or discussion of the people involved.

    I agree that land can change hands due to treaty, but let's be reasonable about what constitutes a treaty.
    I don't see anything that Israel has stated that they want as an end state.

    That's one of the several serious problems, is it not?

    In fact, Netanyahu has been solidly opposed to every arrangement I've heard proposed.

    Thus, we get ethnic cleansing and foreign military rule of Palestinians in Palestine and we get Gaza as an open air prison, under constant war by Israel with absolutely NO willingness to discuss any other direction.
     
  22. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    In my effort to simplify the issue, I skipped over a couple of key events.

    PART ONE (terra nullius)

    When Israel crossed the Armistice Line in 1967, it was in hot pursuit of the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) that was in retrograde motion. The territory overrun by the pursuit was Jordanian Controlled Territory which came under occupation by the Israeli Defense Forces. In July 1988, Jordan executed what they term as: "Disengagement from the West Bank." On 31 July 1988 King Hussein announced the "severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."

    "The expression “ terra nullius” was a legal term of art employed in connection with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid occupation.”​

    On 1 October 1988, the holding and claim over the West Bank and Jerusalem were abandoned. The Arab Palestinians did not have a standing government. Thus, the territory falls into the hands of the government power - Israel.

    PART TWO (Treaty Peace)

    In 1994, Israel and Jordan enter into a Treaty whereby PEACE was established between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel. Article 3 of the Treaty addressed the "International Boundary" addressed. This Treaty met the criteria in Article XII of the 1949 Armistice which would "remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."

    (COMMENT)

    I'm must admit, I am not sure as to Israel's intention. I'm not Israeli, and cannot speak to this matter.

    (COMMENT)

    Pursuant to Article V, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements 13 September 1993 between The Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) there was to be established under the Permanent Status Negotiations (PSN). These negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including:
    ◈ Jerusalem,
    ◈ Refugees,
    ◈ Settlements,
    ◈ Security Arrangements,
    ◈ Borders,
    ◈ Relations and cooperation with other neighbors,
    ◈ and other issues of common interest.​

    The Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. This left the Gaza Strip in the hands of the Palestinians, which turned out to be The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS). HAMAS policy assumes Palestine is that land, "which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south." (River to the Sea mantra) HAMAS's goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives, and means. [The role outlined in A/RES/3246 (XXIX)
    29 November 1974 and A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978.] Essentially, HAMAS has a policy of continuous conflict until they acquire their goal.

    It is HAMAS policy to resist the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2021
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes - Hamas didn't like having its land and government usurped by Israel.

    What I want to kmow is why do people keep bringing that up as if it is some sort of shock??

    I mean, it's certainly what the USA did when we had no representation in the goverrnment being imposed.

    We evern wrote a declaration of independence to state what the reasons for such events might be.

    Ours didn't perfectly match the situation of the Palestinians, but what is being fought over is exactly the same.
     
  24. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    REF: How can we stop the rockets from landing on Sderot, Israel?
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    The Gaza Strip was never "usurped by Israel." The Gaza Strip was territory formerly under the Egyptian Military Governorship. The Israelis overran that territory in the 1967 Six-Day War.

    Prior to the Six-Day War, it was the Armies of the Arab League that were the occupation force. Not Israel.

    The 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Agreement addressed the permanent boundary between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel was recognized as the boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine (Article II). You will notice that using the Mandate boundary, the entirety of the Gaza Strip falls within the sovereignty of Israel.

    Now the Egyptian Governorship in September 1948, formed the puppet government called the All Palestine Government (APG). Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, former Captain in the Ottoman Army, who got religion and became the Mufti of Jerusalem, later became the President of the Egyptian assembled All Palestine Government (APG). Similarly, Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, former General Officer in the Ottoman Army, became the Premier of the APG. The APG attempted to claim sovereignty over the entire territory formerly under the Mandate (A/C.1/330 14 October 1948), which included the complete partition of the Jewish State.

    The APG attempt to declare independence over the entirety of the territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine did not get any traction in 1948, and it was not able to make any significant progress at any point in its imaginary establishment. The progress was so poor that the Egyptians disbanded the APG in 1959.

    (COMMENT)

    In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) via the Palestine National Council declared, on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the (first) State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827-S/20278 of 18 November 1988)

    The reasons cited along with the Declaration of Independence in the Political Communiqué is the same mantra and propaganda the world has heard over the last century.

    (COMMENT)

    WHAT is being fought over and HOW it is being fought are two different things. Remember, the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the PLO Basic Law are only two years apart.

    The Palestinain National Council considers the establishment of the State of Israel a continuous aggression on the land and people of Palestine. The Council confirmed the right of the Palestinian people to struggle for the liberation of their homeland.​


    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hoped I wouldn't have to spell out which part of Palestine I was referencing.

    But besides the fact of what Israel is doing in West Bank, Israel interdicts Palestinian activity in the territorial waters of Gaza, preventing fishing and tapping its fossil fuel resources.
    Once again, even Hamas has confirmed that Israel is a permanent state.

    Why do you keep bringing this up? How many times do you think they need to say that to you?

    Whether Israel was or was not legally formed, whether it will be allowed to continue, etc., - these are not the issues of this century.
     
    RoccoR likes this.

Share This Page