Comments by "Kenneth Hammond" (@kennethhammond6683) on "UpFront - Two-state solution is not a 'valid solution right now'" video.

  1. Israeli law is not valid in occupied territory, outside the borders of the state of Israel.The West Bank is neither Israeli, Jewish or disputed territory, in fact the West Bank, including Jerusalem are indisputably occupied Palestinian territory, outside the borders of The State of Israel.
    3
  2. 1969cmp Actually Israel declared its sovereign extent in 1948, as described in Israel's declaration and request for international recognition as being that which is defined by the partition plan of Nov 1947, of which NONE of the West Bank or Jerusalem was included, Israel's sovereign borders today are the exact same as they were in 1948, Israel has never legally annexed any new territory to its sovereign extent, the West Bank and Jerusalem are indeed OccupiedPalestinian territory outside the borders of the state of Israel. Israeli territory has never included any territory Israel occupied either in 1948 or 1967 including the Golan heights, sovereign to Syria.
    1
  3. 1969cmp In fact the Israeli government of the day in 1948 stated in its reply to the UN that all of the West Bank including Jerusalem were occupied Palestine outside the borders of the state of Israel. Maybe you should do something about rectifying your gross ignorance off the facts of history. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/b4085a930e0529c98025649d00410973?OpenDocument
    1
  4. 1969cmp Additionally the laws that govern the rights and actions of states in the 21st century are what applies, not some fantasy about the myths propagated by jews in a mythological text of the distant past, try to get real idiot.
    1
  5. Israel declared its statehood 14 May 1948, the historical clock for the state of Israel starts then. not before.
    1
  6. TheNaturalust Customary international law does not allow UN Member states to recognise territory acquired in war as being sovereign to the acquiring state, as such Israel has no recognised sovereign rights over territory it has acquired during its wars of 1948 and 1967, UNSC 242 clearly states that Israel is required to withdraw from the territories it acquired during the 1967 war, obviously the exact same principle applies to territory acquired during the 1948 war. The fact that the state of Palestine is recognised internationally as being defined within the '67 armistice lines does not cancel Israel's obligation to withdraw from territories acquired during war, the Palestinian people have simply made an offer to Israel that they are prepared to recognise Israel's border as being the '67 lines, conditional on Israeli withdrawal from all territory acquired during the '67 war and entering into a peace treaty based on these parameters. Annexation of territory in law can only be implemented via a treaty with the peoples who's territory is being annexed.
    1
  7. TheNaturalust Unless you can cite the resolutions granting Israel territory it acquired during the '48 war I will have to defer to my understanding that the UN cannot violate its own Charter,let alone customary international law I very much doubt that the UN has officially recognised territory acquired by Israel in 1948, as Israeli territory, in fact after the '48 war ended Israel filed a request that territory it acquired in that war be deemed as Israeli territory, the UN Reconcilliation Commission denied the request, pointing Israel to the General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949 “Article V. 1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948. 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” Article XI No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. It is illegal to acquire territory by force/war and Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory outside the extent of it’s declared Sovereignty. The laws regarding territory acquired during war are not tempered by aggressive/defensive criteria, the laws apply to all and any war. A lot of people seem to confuse the Palestinians offer of peace based on the '48 green line in exchange for recognising Israel on the same lines as a done deal,this proposal is simply an offer that has not been taken up by Israel to date, as such the border between Israel and Palestine remains at the '48 partition lines.
    1
  8. Israel is no different from any other independent state. What lies outside of Israel’s legal sovereign extent, is simply not Israeli. Since Israel’s territories were proclaimed by the Israeli Government in their plea for recognition, no further territories have ever been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement and no state has ever recognized any territories acquired by war as Israeli.
    1
  9. TheNaturalust The 2004 Wall decision handed down as requested by the UN to determine the legal status of territory occupied by Israel in 1967 also makes legal representation and delivers a conclusion to the UN Body towards what it calls as territory occupied by Israel in a previous conflict, i.e.: the 1948 war.the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict, identifying that territory as equally occupied by Israel, which includes Jerusalem. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&ca The reason why there is not UN Resolution identifying that fact in 1948-49 is that at that time Israel was not a member of the UN so therefore at that time could not be sanctioned by the UN, The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in '48 is cited in the ICJ findings with regards the legal status of territory of Palestine occupied by Israel in both in the '48 and '67 wars.
    1
  10. TheNaturalust Sure, its a little hard to find in the script, the findings I refer to are in the section dealing with **Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Highlighted by **----* Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law. The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self‑determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). * As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict***. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Also: On May 22, 1948https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/b4085a930e0529c98025649d00410973?OpenDocumentthe Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations. Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control? At present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947? "In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, "outside the territory of the State of Israel" are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed." ... " the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel"
    1
  11. TheNaturalust You are right in that the Palestinians have offered a compromise for the sakes of peace and only demand that territory Israel occupied in the '67 war as their state, however that offer is conditional as I am sure you are aware, on Israel abiding by UNSC 242, Israel has thus rejected that offer, as a result the only territory which is Israeli territory is as you cite that within the partition boundaries as declared, leaving from the legal standpoint Palestine on the '48 Partition lines.. If Israel were to be given a pass on the territory it occupied in '48 it would make a mockery of the laws that forbid aggression, the acquisition of territory by war and annexing of occupied territory , outside its own borders. Of interest is that Israel has not actually legally annexed any Palestinian territory, If Israel were to accept the Palestinian offer on the '67 lines it would still have to legally annex that territory it occupied in '48, telling us that it is not Israeli territory.
    1