"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
SUBTOPIC: Illegal Settlements?
※→ AHZ, Kathianne, Gunny, et al,
(ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS)
Why don't we lay this argument to rest.
IF the argument and legalities as presented by the Arab Palestinians (and the associated Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) was as clear, plain, and simple as they suggest, the damn question would have been put down a half century ago. But that is not the case at all.
The fact of the matter is that the matter of "Illegal Settlements" is undefined in as much as the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to have agreed to Para 3, A/PV.2268. 14 October 1974), agree to ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".
If the HoAP want to challenge that, then the internationally agreed upon remedy is outlined in Article V. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS
But the HoAP have a policy that Armed Struggle and Open Hostile Resistance.
[quoted="Gunny"]
Just a couple of thoughts. Not questioning what written law is; rather, what it means in reality.
IMO, Rights are an illusion extended by government to the People creating the perception that government has those Rights to give. In reality, the People have those Rights without government and government in fact, only infringes on one's freedoms by drawing parameters around them. The promise being that government will guarantee and protect those Rights. As we can clearly see, government is quite selective in whose Rights/freedoms are afforded its protection.
I make the distinction between rights and freedoms as the former is codified in law while the latter is inherent minus infringement.
I would be interested to see in contrast the official Palestinian legal argument it uses to make its case.[/quote]
Originally Posted by Kathianne
(COMMENT)
As far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, the Israelis abandoned that worthless peace of dirt two decades ago. Although if anyone is interested, the gaze Strip was covered in Article II of the 1974 Egyptian and Israeli Treaty.
As for the West Bank - the International Boundary between Israel and Jordan is covered in Article 3 of the 1994 Peace Treaty between the Hashemite Kingdom and State of Israel.
The HoAP and associates do not understand what the term "sovereignty" means.
Originally Posted by Excerpt Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law
When did the Arab Palestinians have sovereignty over any territory in the last thousand years?
As far as "Rights" are concerned, no one has taken any "Rights" away from the Palestinians. There are nine 9 International Covenants that address the agreed upon and ratified (having the power of a treaty) Human Rights. Applicable here is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). This is not to be confused with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the principle document applicable is the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) including the Additional Protocols.
The current Arab Palestinian 'v' Israeli Conflict, as driven by the HoAP is based upon the Palestinian belief that they have the "Right" to apply all available means, including armed struggle simply because they claim the the territory from the Jordan River to the MediterraneanSea (or any patrician included). I would like to call your attention to Article 68 of the GCIV. In short, the HoAP who commit criminal act which are solely intended to harm the Israeli Occupying Forces are subject to arrest and prosecution and on conviction - imprisonment or interment.
HoAP found guilty of espionage, sabotage and crime which cause death may be subject to execution.
Every time al Jazzera or one of the social media advocate or try to justify armed struggle, they are in fact in violation of the CCPR (Article 20).
OK, I'm off the Soap Box!
Most Respectfully,
R
Found this. 20 mins. While not legally applicable, it goes a long way explaining pre-Islamic history on the Arabian Peninsula. The Jewish tribes were as much a part of the tribal life of the Bedouins as anyone else. No mention of "Palestinians", even as a tribe. Best I can tell, there were no real borders beyond natural ones, nor written law.
Where I'm going: Iran has incessantly argued "no foreign blood on Arab land" as its excuse for waging a religious war against another religion. I just gave my punchline away. One, Iranians are not Arabs. They're Persians. Two, this is a shia war against Judaism, and has nothing to do with history, hor "rights". Those Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are exactly that, and nothing more than pawns in a larger, ideological war being waged by the shia. Iran has shia backed militia all over the Arabian Peninsula. Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
IMO, the religion is an excuse. Iran is in a war of conquest against any and everyone. A stated goal, btw.
Last edited by Gunny; 07-14-2023 at 05:38 PM.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke