Israel/Palestine events

[sunday]

2 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Acc. to the much knowing Wiki, the Brits put administrative detention in the books in 1945 and it is still in use because:

Geneva Convention, ART. 64. — The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain
in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended
by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its
security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

That is addressed in the links I posted.

I quoted the relevant part, ever. As it looks like you did not bother to read it, I should post it again, and beg for your collaboration in having a read:

Quote

But human rights groups say Israel's expansive use of the measure is an abuse of a security law not designed to be employed at such scale, and that detainees cannot effectively defend themselves, or appeal, because they have no access to the evidence against them.
"Under international law, administrative detention should be a rare exception," said Jessica Montell, the executive director of HaMoked, an Israeli human rights organisation that monitors detention of Palestinians.
"You are supposed to use it when there is a present danger and no other way to prevent that danger than detaining someone. But it is clear Israel is not using it that way. It is detaining hundreds, thousands of people, without charge, and using administrative detention to shield itself from scrutiny."

 

Edited July 21 by sunday

[Markus Becker]

5 minutes ago, sunday said:

I am beginning to think you did not read that, as I could find easily the following:

Furthermore, that document was from before WWII, while the current State of Israel was created by the UN passing Resolution 181 (II), and that would supersede any document on the matter passed by the Society of Nations.

 

The key part is article 2, the establishment of a Jewish national home.

UNGA 181 was a non binding proposal* - because the GA can't make legally binding decisions, only the SC can- that could have changed the legal map if it had been accepted by the Arab side. It was not, so it did not.

 

*for partition, not statehood, that had been dealt with long before. Starting with the San Remo Conference.

Edited July 21 by Markus Becker

[sunday]

4 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

The key part is article 2, the establishment of a Jewish national home.

That does not mean the existing inhabitants need to be expelled, methinks.

Edited to add: anyway, the UN passed another resolution in 1974.

Edited July 21 by sunday

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

I didnt started nor I have a wish to argue with him. He is constantly attacking me and I try to stay indiferent as much I can. There is someone who could stop him but for now I didnt see any change

Ignore him, then. He could get bored of not getting interaction.

[Markus Becker]

1 minute ago, sunday said:

That does not mean the existing inhabitants need to be expelled, methinks.

Emphasis on existing and expelled.

 

Post 1919 there was a lot of immigration by Arabs from the other Mandates and so on into Palestine because of economic reasons. I'd classify them as temporary residents, not 'citizens' of this particular Mandate territory.

WRT expulsions, in the lead up to the end of the British mandate a sort of civil war between Jews and Arabs broke out while the Brits were still there. At this point some Arabs returned to where they had come from. Then the Arab High Committee had the brilliant idea to ask the Arabs to leave until the Arab armies had secured the area, so they’d not get caught in the crossfire. And when the Israelis eventually went of the offensive most of the remaining population ran because they expected the Jews to treat them the same way they would have treated the Jews.

I know of one towns population being actually expelled by the Israelis but only after they violated a previous surrender agreement and took up arms again when most of the Israeli forces had departed.

 

 

[sunday]

The Nakba was not a imaginary happenstance, you know.

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Emphasis on existing and expelled.

 

Post 1919 there was a lot of immigration by Arabs from the other Mandates and so on into Palestine because of economic reasons. I'd classify them as temporary residents, not 'citizens' of this particular Mandate territory

By this clasification all of jews are temporary citizens 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

The Nakba was not a imaginary happenstance, you know.

The Nakba is only a disaster of Arab making. Some were driven out under threat, some left voluntarily under the belief the Arab states would make short work of the Jews and could return within a few weeks, months at best, to some recently vacated homes.

There is still no real agreement among historians about what was the driving factor behind the exodus because there wasn't just a single reason. Still, it makes 0 sense to talk about it in 2024. Israel took every measure at the time to leave open the prospects of peace:

1. Houses registered as Arab (Israel inherited Ottoman and British registration) were left intact and every Arab could appeal to an Israeli court with proper documentation and receive Israeli residency and their property back, or at least an equivalent compensation.

2. Israel principally agreed in the past to accept all Palestinian refugees and grant them citizenship.

3. Israel offered land for peace to every Arab neighbor including the Palestinians.

The Palestinians rejected every peace proposal and took every opportunity for war. At some point you'd guess Israel would just stop offering them anything and let them face some consequences.

[Perun]

75 Years Later, Israel Blocking Palestinian Refugees’ Return

‘Nakba’ Anniversary Highlights Continued Israeli Repression

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/15/75-years-later-israel-blocking-palestinian-refugees-return

[Perun]

Israel’s refusal to grant Palestinian refugees right to return has fuelled seven decades of suffering

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/israels-refusal-to-grant-palestinian-refugees-right-to-return-has-fuelled-seven-decades-of-suffering/

[Mighty_Zuk]

This is a thread to write about events, not some personal manifesto. Please take the spam elsewhere.

[txtree99]

 

31 minutes ago, Perun said:

By this clasification all of jews are temporary citizens 

A different view

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/examining-israel-108433277?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_content=web_share

[RETAC21]

While interesting, this has nothing to do with current military events and should be moved to the FFZ

[Mighty_Zuk]

I know it's been mentioned here but I want to raise it once more with an important note. First, here's Mr Nawaf's statement calling on Israel to evacuate all settlements in J&S.

 

When Vice President of ICJ Julia Sebutinde claimed Israel cannot be branded an occupier under the international principle "uti possidetis juris", this is what she meant:

The ICJ is not an international authority. It's a subjective body to whom countries may listen to - or ignore. It cannot take independent policing action against an alleged criminal. But it can deal in legalities and advise nations. 

In applying an order that amounts to ethnic cleansing of J&S from Jews, including those that have lived there, uninterrupted, for thousands of years (small but definitely existent community), they are effectively normalizing - legally - population transfer in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

If previously talks of transfer of Palestinians were taboo, now not only are they not taboo, but they are precisely in accordance with international law.

I know I credit the IRGC with intelligence but they just shot themselves in the foot with this. It's not to say Israel will transfer Palestinians from one place to another, but it now delegitimizes an entire talking point Iran employed in the west for many years.

[Yama]

8 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

The key part is article 2, the establishment of a Jewish national home.

Why don't you read it?

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

"The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,^[5] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.^[5] The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified,^[9] and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine."

Regarding Transjordan - note the Article 25. As it was, only the silliest of Zionist cause have ever discredited themselves by claiming that they should get Transjordania too.

7 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Emphasis on existing and expelled.

Post 1919 there was a lot of immigration by Arabs from the other Mandates and so on into Palestine because of economic reasons. I'd classify them as temporary residents, not 'citizens' of this particular Mandate territory.

There was some (and also before Mandate), but net immigration of Arabs was in order of tens of thousands during the Mandate period.

Edited July 21 by Yama

[ink]

Speaking of international law, the ICJ has ruled that Israel is indeed occupying Palestinian territories.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/22/the-icj-has-demolished-israels-claims-that-it-is-not-occupying-palestinian-territories

For me the interesting bit was this:

Quote

But the court held that for legal purposes, occupation is the product of a military takeover of land, regardless of its status. Even Gaza has long been occupied, the court found, despite Israel’s 2005 disengagement, because Israel maintained authority over various aspects of life in Gaza that could be exercised when it wished.

I always thought the "disengagement" was a bit BS-ish and it's nice to see that I wasn't way off track.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Speaking of international law, the ICJ has ruled that Israel is indeed occupying Palestinian territories.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/22/the-icj-has-demolished-israels-claims-that-it-is-not-occupying-palestinian-territories

For me the interesting bit was this:

I always thought the "disengagement" was a bit BS-ish and it's nice to see that I wasn't way off track.

It's not that it was BS, more like there was no real way to determine it was occupied without setting a new legal precedent.

Typically, for an area to be considered occupied, it must be a territory to which one must associate an occupying party, and an occupied party.

For fun, I guess, the public discord was that Gaza was occupied because its occupied party was the Palestinians. It was never law, but it was some form of common agreement. For it to be law the Palestinians must have statehood. But this was waived.

As for occupying power - it is typically assumed that the occupying power at least asserts military occupation over an area. For Israel to be considered an occupying power without a military occupation, it must annex the territory. But Gaza is not annexed to Israel. As far as I'm aware, there is no other form of occupation explained elsewhere.

By the way, that is why the so called occupation in Gaza was always widely referred to as "illegal", because there is no legal definition of an occupation type that does not meet the criterion for existing occupation types. That is - it is an illegal definition of occupation.

What Mr Nawaf references here is the illegal occupation aspect, where he does not establish a relationship of occupier-occupied.

There is a contrast between the steady state, i.e. 2005-2023, and the post-7/10 period. In the steady state, the ICJ recognizes that Israel does not occupy Gaza. It does recognize that Israel is occupying Gaza at the moment, however low these criteria may be (e.g. Israel does not establish civilian control).

So the ICJ ruling does not determine the permanent or steady state status of Gaza, but rather its status right now and until the war ends.

[Markus Becker]

On 7/21/2024 at 6:25 PM, Perun said:

By this clasification all of jews are temporary citizens 

Start reading the Mandate. The place was to become the future Jewish national home and for that reason the British were supposed to encourage Jewish immigration. 

The Arab homelands were all around it on the vast majority of the former Ottoman Empire's territory. 

[Markus Becker]

18 hours ago, Yama said:

Why don't you read it?

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

"The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,^[5] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.^[5] The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified,^[9] and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine."

Regarding Transjordan - note the Article 25. As it was, only the silliest of Zionist cause have ever discredited themselves by claiming that they should get Transjordania too.

There was some (and also before Mandate), but net immigration of Arabs was in order of tens of thousands during the Mandate period.

Yes, the existing Arab population had OFC civil and religious rights confirmed but the ones with the national rights were the Jews. 

And wrt to the Jewish National Home covering all of Palestine. It indeed did not. Already in the early 1920 the British split the eastern part -75% of Palestine- and rebranded it Transjordan. Yet another Arab National Home. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

IDF enters Khan Younis and issues evacuation orders. Part of the evacuated area is within the humanitarian zone. I'm assuming Israel will set up a new one and clear this one of leftover Hamassies. It's also estimated that hostages may be in that area.

 

Not sure why it's considered noteworthy and published everywhere but here's example #6573541 of Hamas hijacking a humanitarian aid truck.

A Canadian citizen on a trip to Israel attempted to kill some Jews, specifically in Netiv Ha'asara where dozens of people were brutally massacred on October 7th.

He managed to inflict one casualty - an anxious woman, after which he spontaneously died.

 

Edited July 22 by Mighty_Zuk

[Perun]

13 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Start reading the Mandate. The place was to become the future Jewish national home and for that reason the British were supposed to encourage Jewish immigration. 

The Arab homelands were all around it on the vast majority of the former Ottoman Empire's territory. 

The Arab homeland was also all around in Palestina to

[Perun]

Fighting in Rafah

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

Are there even unarmed Palestinian "medics" at this point?

 

Edited July 23 by Mighty_Zuk

[Perun]

interesting article which @Mighty_Zuk liked

 

Hamas and Fatah agree to form a government. What does it mean and who are these Palestinian groups?

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Palestinian factions and bitter foes Hamas and Fatah signed a declaration in China vowing to form a unity government to govern the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip following the end of the Israel-Hamas war.

The agreement announced in Beijing on Tuesday, which also included 12 smaller Palestinian parties, could start the thawing of relations and potential reconciliation of the two heavyweights of Palestinian politics who have long been at odds over the governance of the Palestinian territories.

Israel has ruled out any initiative that would lead to Hamas or the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority governing Gaza, and the China deal offers only a broad outline on how Fatah and Hamas would work together.

Here is a look at the relationship between the two and the challenges that lie ahead.

An agreement between old Palestinian foes
The secular Fatah party and Hamas, a Sunni Islamist party, have been at loggerheads since the late 1980s.

Tensions between the two climaxed after the second Intifada, or uprising, that ended in 2005. Hamas narrowly won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and seized power in Gaza the following year in a violent takeover. During the fighting, Fatah members were arrested and some were killed.

Hamas has ruled Gaza since, though Israel’s campaign since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks has driven it underground.

The Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and has spent the last decade clamping down on dissent, rounding up and arresting Hamas members — many of whom are wanted by Israel — and posing little resistance to Israeli raids.

It is widely viewed as corrupt and many Palestinians consider it a subcontractor of the Israeli occupation because of their unpopular security coordination. Since the latest war in Gaza began, Israel has increased its operations in the West Bank and imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas and Fatah signed reconciliation agreements in Cairo, Egypt, in 2011, and 11 years later in Algiers, Algeria, but their provisions were never implemented.

The Beijing declaration calls for a Palestinian state based on borders that were in place before Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem in a 1967 war. But it offers only the broadest outline as to how the two factions would work together and provides no timeframe for its implementation.

The deal also does not address the groups’ diverging views on Israel; Hamas has long refused to officially recognize Israel, while the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel since they signed peace deals in the early 1990s and it supports a two-state solution.

Tahani Mustafa, an analyst with the Crisis Group, an international think tank, doubts that the Beijing agreement will mark a turning point.

“A lot of this was just a PR stunt,” Mustafa said, adding that given the current situation, both factions had little to lose by signing it.

Israel says no to “Hamastan” and ”Fatahstan”
Israel denounced the deal hours after it was signed, and has repeatedly said Hamas will have no involvement in the running of Gaza after the war. The U.S. and other Western countries have previously refused to accept any Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless it expressly recognizes Israel.

The joint declaration comes at a sensitive time in the 10-month war; Israel and Hamas are weighing an internationally backed cease-fire proposal that would wind down the war and free dozens of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Who will run Gaza after the war remains one of the thorniest unresolved issues in the negotiations in Cairo.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t want the Palestinian Authority to participate in the future running of Gaza either.

“I am not prepared to switch from Hamastan to Fatahstan,” Netanyahu announced in April, accusing both group’s of posing security threats to Israel.

Netanyahu’s government and Israel’s parliament have rejected the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has not presented a cohesive vision for running post-war Gaza, raising the possibility of prolonged Israeli military control over the territory.

Beijing brokering peace in the Middle East
Perhaps the most significant thing about the deal was the location and the broker: China.

Beijing has sought to position itself as a mediator in the region, despite not being part of the formal peace negotiations between Israel and Hamas. The move is widely seen as part of Xi Jinping’s efforts to increase Beijing’s global stature and act as a counterweight to Western influence.

The declaration in Beijing comes a year after China brokered a deal to normalize ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran after years of severed relations.

“If the Palestinian factions (especially Hamas and Fatah) are able to put into practice the reconciliation stated in the Beijing Declaration, then China’s diplomatic influence in the Middle East will surely be boosted,” James Char, a research fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said in an email.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-fatah-hamas-beijing-declaration-d3cc29dd3748c77aeeda9294be6522d5

Edited July 24 by Perun

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Hamas and Fatah agree to form a government. What does it mean and who are these Palestinian groups?

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Palestinian factions and bitter foes Hamas and Fatah signed a declaration in China vowing to form a unity government to govern the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip following the end of the Israel-Hamas war.

The agreement announced in Beijing on Tuesday, which also included 12 smaller Palestinian parties, could start the thawing of relations and potential reconciliation of the two heavyweights of Palestinian politics who have long been at odds over the governance of the Palestinian territories.

Israel has ruled out any initiative that would lead to Hamas or the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority governing Gaza, and the China deal offers only a broad outline on how Fatah and Hamas would work together.

Here is a look at the relationship between the two and the challenges that lie ahead.

An agreement between old Palestinian foes
The secular Fatah party and Hamas, a Sunni Islamist party, have been at loggerheads since the late 1980s.

Tensions between the two climaxed after the second Intifada, or uprising, that ended in 2005. Hamas narrowly won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and seized power in Gaza the following year in a violent takeover. During the fighting, Fatah members were arrested and some were killed.

Hamas has ruled Gaza since, though Israel’s campaign since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks has driven it underground.

The Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and has spent the last decade clamping down on dissent, rounding up and arresting Hamas members — many of whom are wanted by Israel — and posing little resistance to Israeli raids.

It is widely viewed as corrupt and many Palestinians consider it a subcontractor of the Israeli occupation because of their unpopular security coordination. Since the latest war in Gaza began, Israel has increased its operations in the West Bank and imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas and Fatah signed reconciliation agreements in Cairo, Egypt, in 2011, and 11 years later in Algiers, Algeria, but their provisions were never implemented.

The Beijing declaration calls for a Palestinian state based on borders that were in place before Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem in a 1967 war. But it offers only the broadest outline as to how the two factions would work together and provides no timeframe for its implementation.

The deal also does not address the groups’ diverging views on Israel; Hamas has long refused to officially recognize Israel, while the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel since they signed peace deals in the early 1990s and it supports a two-state solution.

Tahani Mustafa, an analyst with the Crisis Group, an international think tank, doubts that the Beijing agreement will mark a turning point.

“A lot of this was just a PR stunt,” Mustafa said, adding that given the current situation, both factions had little to lose by signing it.

Israel says no to “Hamastan” and ”Fatahstan”
Israel denounced the deal hours after it was signed, and has repeatedly said Hamas will have no involvement in the running of Gaza after the war. The U.S. and other Western countries have previously refused to accept any Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless it expressly recognizes Israel.

The joint declaration comes at a sensitive time in the 10-month war; Israel and Hamas are weighing an internationally backed cease-fire proposal that would wind down the war and free dozens of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Who will run Gaza after the war remains one of the thorniest unresolved issues in the negotiations in Cairo.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t want the Palestinian Authority to participate in the future running of Gaza either.

“I am not prepared to switch from Hamastan to Fatahstan,” Netanyahu announced in April, accusing both group’s of posing security threats to Israel.

Netanyahu’s government and Israel’s parliament have rejected the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has not presented a cohesive vision for running post-war Gaza, raising the possibility of prolonged Israeli military control over the territory.

Beijing brokering peace in the Middle East
Perhaps the most significant thing about the deal was the location and the broker: China.

Beijing has sought to position itself as a mediator in the region, despite not being part of the formal peace negotiations between Israel and Hamas. The move is widely seen as part of Xi Jinping’s efforts to increase Beijing’s global stature and act as a counterweight to Western influence.

The declaration in Beijing comes a year after China brokered a deal to normalize ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran after years of severed relations.

“If the Palestinian factions (especially Hamas and Fatah) are able to put into practice the reconciliation stated in the Beijing Declaration, then China’s diplomatic influence in the Middle East will surely be boosted,” James Char, a research fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said in an email.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-fatah-hamas-beijing-declaration-d3cc29dd3748c77aeeda9294be6522d5

Nice copy paste of an article. Where is your own commentary as per new forum rules?