Thieving Israeli soldiers not prosecuted

No, it is because the Israelis operate an Apartheid system and do not prosecute their own.

 

"Palestine" was promised exclusivly to the Jews, you can read it in the document of the Mandate when the Mandate say that "Palestine" will the area where the Jewish homelnad will be reconstituted, while the other non-Jewish communities will not enjoy establishment of a state, but only their civil rights will need to be respected.

BTW- because the Mandate never set bounderies to where the Jewish homeland will be reconstituted, then according to that, the Jews have all the right in the world to demend that Judea and Samaria will be part of that homeland, becuase first of all Judea and Samaria is part of "Palestine", and by having Judea and Samaria part of the Jewish homeland (not like it is today), then it will not be whole of "Palestine".

Right, not long after the creation of the Mandate the Brits gave to the Arabs lands from "Palestine" which today is related as "Jordan". And I never said otherwise.

THe British Mandate didnt end in November 1947, but it ended in May 1948. But still the document of the Mandate kept it's validity thanks to Article 80 of the UN Charter that every Mandates that were created before 1946, their validity will kept and will continued to be respected.

Paragraph 1 of Article 80 says:

Article 77 described what the catagories that the trusteeship agreements shall be apply:

Which means that because "Palestine" was a territory that in 1946 held under Mandate, then Article 80 of the Mandate refers to the document of the Mandate from 1922, which makes what was written in the document of the Mandate a document that all what is written in it has kept it validity as ARticle 80 described.

Do you know that if a majority of people say something, it is not necessarily means that what they say it is true. Like when the majority of people in te past claimed that the world is flat, while it was not true.

 

Isreal prosecutes their own when there are charges that have been filed, since there are no charges then Israel cant do nothing. Like if a man rape a woman in the street and the woman doesnt file a charge against him, the police cant arrest the man, right? Even tough that we will both agree that the rape is awful and shocking event.

 

The Israelis do not bring charges against the Israel Defense Forces.

 

And because there are no charges that've been filed, then Israel cant arrest anybody. If there were charges that've been filed, then they would go to military jail.

 

It has never happened yet. Maybe the Israel Defense Forces are completely innocent after all.

 

"Palestine" was promised exclusivly to the Jews, you can read it in the document of the Mandate when the Mandate say that "Palestine" will the area where the Jewish homelnad will be reconstituted, while the other non-Jewish communities will not enjoy establishment of a state, but only their civil rights will need to be respected.
BTW- because the Mandate never set bounderies to where the Jewish homeland will be reconstituted, then according to that, the Jews have all the right in the world to demend that Judea and Samaria will be part of that homeland, becuase first of all Judea and Samaria is part of "Palestine", and by having Judea and Samaria part of the Jewish homeland (not like it is today), then it will not be whole of "Palestine"."
No it didn't. The mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. It's indisputable that Israel is a Jewish home in what was Palestine thus, it's indisputable that goal of mandate has been fulfilled. Thus there is no basis for Israel to claim West Bank due to mandate.

"territories now held under mandate;"
Which means that because "Palestine" was a territory that in 1946 held under Mandate, then Article 80 of the Mandate refers to the document of the Mandate from 1922, which makes what was written in the document of the Mandate a document that all what is written in it has kept it validity as ARticle 80 described."
No it doesn't(nowhere does article 80 refer to document of mandate; article 80 says "nothing shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples" under ongoing international trustees which means that from 1945 to 1948 when the British held Palestine as part of international trustee supported by UNSC The British couldn't be any action that "shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples") . Now means at this current moment. This means for article 80 to be applicable; right now at this moment there would need to be an international trustee supported by the UNSC over West Bank which there isn't , why do you use bs arguments like this?

"Do you know that if a majority of people say something, it is not necessarily means that what they say it is true. Like when the majority of people in te past claimed that the world is flat, while it was not true. "
I never said it did. Using example of people viewing the world is flat in the past isn't a relevant example as new evidence changed people from thinking the earth was flat. Also, most of the educated people and scholars didn't think the world was flat during medieval ages with ancient Greeks first saying the Earth was spherical. These people I cited are experts, people that specialize in international law ie people that would the ones who know if Israel is an occupying power and if settlements violate the law as a result of that. People more qualified than me and you or most if not all(especially ones like Theodore Meron, James Crawford, and John Dugard) people on this form to know whether Israel is an occupying power or if article 80 applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

 

I'd certainly like to see justice done. Perhaps we can start with all of Hamas turning themselves in for prosecution of belonging to a terrorist group, then move onto those throwing rocks and at the same time, as long as justice is being served, we can continue investigation Israeli troops looting.

So, how are we doing on the Palestinian side so far?

 

The validity of the document of the Mandate is been kept thanks to Article 80 of the UN Charter. As I showed here numerous of times.

According to your source (the website of the UN) Article 80 says:

Which means that according to Article 77, that Article 80 refers to, that the trusteeship agreements shall be apply on territories that now held under Mandate, which means that Article 80 of the UN Charter talks about the document of the Mandate when it refers it readers to Article 77, and thus is keeping the rights that were granted in the document of the Mandate until this day (after all, Article 80 is still part from the UN Charter and the article was never been cenceled).

Also the exeprts I cited are international law experts like Dr. Gauthier that studied this topic for 26 years and even wrote his thesis on this metter, Prof. Rostow that was one of the drafters of Resolution 242, Dr, Howard Grief- the legal advisor in matters of international law pertaining to the Land of Israel and Jewish rights thereto in the Israeli governments etc.

 

"The validity of the document of the Mandate is been kept thanks to Article 80 of the UN Charter. As I showed here numerous of times."
No you haven't again "The mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. It's indisputable that Israel is a Jewish home in what was Palestine thus, it's indisputable that goal of mandate has been fulfilled. Thus there is no basis for Israel to claim West Bank due to mandate." You haven't contradicted nor is it a statement that can be contradicted since it's correct.

"Which means that according to Article 77, that Article 80 refers to, that the trusteeship agreements shall be apply on territories that now held under Mandate, which means that Article 80 of the UN Charter talks about the document of the Mandate when it refers it readers to Article 77, and thus is keeping the rights that were granted in the document of the Mandate until this day (after all, Article 80 is still part from the UN Charter and the article was never been cenceled)."
It's referring to trusteeship agreements in general it doesn't cite a specific trusteeship agreements. It says now held by under mandate. Now means right this moment not 1946, please use logic in your posts, I know you know that now in the English language means right at this moment. West Bank is not held under international trustees mandate so it doesn't apply. Nowhere does article 80 keep mandates going on forever which doesn't make any logical sense as mandates are temporary arrangements until the people held under mandate are able to achieve independence.

" Also the exeprts I cited are international law experts like Dr. Gauthier that studied this topic for 26 years and even wrote his thesis on this metter, Prof. Rostow that was one of the drafters of Resolution 242, Dr, Howard Grief- the legal advisor in matters of international law pertaining to the Land of Israel and Jewish rights thereto in the Israeli governments etc. "
That didn't refute me. A majority of International law scholars disagree with them again ie people who would know if article 80 applies or if Israel holds West Bank as occupying power. Howard Grief advised Israeli governments ie the governments that build the settlements in West Bank so it's not surprising that he views them as legal. As mentioned before, Theodore Meron(who later became to judge for Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals) was legal adviser to Israeli foreign ministry after six day war and a wrote a memo saying the opposite that settlements are illegal due to Israel violating its obligations as occupying power. As mentioned before, James Crawford who wrote a 60 page legal opinion to E.U on whether E.U could ban settlement products and later judge for International Justice along with Christine Chanet, Theo Van Boven, John Quigley, Ben Sal, and John Dugard all contradict Rostow(UNSC 446 and 465 UNSC 465 and 476 resolutions which he didn't have a part in drafting all say Israel is an occupying power and that settlements are illegal), Stone, and Gauthier.
http://www.aaiusa.org/prominent-group-of-experts-urge-obama-to-back-un-settlement-resolution-

 

Article 80 never mentions the Mandate for Palestine document.

- - - Updated - - -

Nazis also never filed charges against criminals in the German army. Doesn't mean they committed no crimes

 

The problem for you here is that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the rights that were granted to people in prior Mandates (prior to 1946) would be kept, and thus the rights that were granted to the Jews in the document of the Mandate are still valid and because of that it can be used regarding Judea and Samaria since this area is part of "Palestine", and since the document of the Mandate didnt specified any borders, then the area of Judea and Samaria can be included since, once again, it is part of "Palestine" and that Article 80 of the UN Charter protects.

Since the document of the Mandate wasnt concluded, then nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments. Which means that the rights that were granted in the document of the Mandate (when Article 80 created in 1946 it referred to Mandate that were existed prior to 1946) cant be touched in any way. And it is valid till toady because the Mandate has yet to be concluded. (in May 1948 the British Mandate was concluded but not the document of the Mandate).

It did. All the exeprts I cited are refuted your claims.

As I already wrote to you:
Also the exeprts I cited are international law experts like Dr. Gauthier that studied this topic for 26 years and even wrote his thesis on this metter, Prof. Rostow that was one of the drafters of Resolution 242, Dr, Howard Grief- the legal advisor in matters of international law pertaining to the Land of Israel and Jewish rights thereto in the Israeli governments etc.

AFAI- It seems that you are in some competition "who has more experts". It is like "who has bigger ****". It doesn't do you any justice.

- - - Updated - - -

Please re-read my comment it this threa number #27. I already responded to that.

The charges against the Nazis were brought to court after WWII.

 

so you never read Article 80.

 

I did read, dont worry.

 

then you don't understand it.

as it says the rights of mandates go away when the mandate is concluded.

 

I understand it perfectly.

And since the document of the Mandate never concluded, then the rights of the Mandate is still valid. (In May 1948 the British Mandate came to an end, but not the document of the Mandate).

 

The UN concluded the Mandate document, after it was given to them by the British.

 

The UN tried to concluded the document of the Mandate with resolutio 181, but since it was never been accepted by hte Arabs, and thus never been fulfilled, then it didnt effect the documet of the Mandate.

 

The UN concluded the mandate document after 181.

 

As I already said:
The UN tried to concluded the document of the Mandate with resolutio 181, but since it was never been accepted by hte Arabs, and thus never been fulfilled, then it didnt effect the documet of the Mandate.

 

so you're just going to ignore what I said??

after 181 was approved but not implemented, the UN chose to conclude the mandate document.

 

I didnt ignore anything. I already responded, Please re-read my last comment.

 

your post failed to address my point.

you ignored it

 

I didnt ignore it. You said that the doument of the Mandate concluded, while I showed you that it didnt.

 

no, you did no such thing, nor did you provide any evidence.

you're simply being obtuse.