I have very limited understanding of the status of Israel's boundaries
in international law. I've done basic reading; I know how and when
specific boundaries were drawn. But their legal status?

There are two ways an international boundary gets international
recognition at the time of declaration of a state, either by bi-lateral
or multi-lateral treaty in which the boundary is demarcated, or by international custom.

In the surrender of the Ottoman Empire (or whatever country it was) in
WWI, Turkey no longer claimed control of the Middle East and French and
British Mandates carved up massive amounts of territory.

Legally, the Mandate was not colonization nor occupation. It was
administration intended to lead to new states. But the Mandate --
created as part of the multi-lateral peace treaty ending World War One
-- has international legal recognition long predating the United
Nations.

The British drew a variety of borders for administrative purposes.
Pre-WWI, when there were various powers occupying Egypt over the
centuries, Turkey, France during the Napoleonic wars, and the British,
the line was drawn in 1906 between Britain and the Ottoman Empire
through unpopulated desert that wouldn't be disputed. Egypt wasn't a
country but had plenty of autonomy.

This boundary became one of the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine. The
boundary between Israel and Jordan was based on the 1920 demarcation of
the eastern boundary of mandatory Palestine, although Transjordan was
added to the British, er, mandate/occupation/administration in 1921 but administered separately.

So various peace treaties Israel is party to incorporate these British
drawn administrative lines by reference as international boundaries.

This is international boundary BY CUSTOM, not by treaty, for it is
CUSTOMARY to recognize the boundaries of a state at time of declaration
as having been created within existing territory without a treaty to the contrary.

Israel was the only state to come out of Mandatory Palestine. The
surrounding Arab powers didn't recognize Israel and there were a series
of wars between 1948 and 1951. Significantly, no Arab state of Palestine
formed (it declared its existence one day before the first invasion
occurred in the first war in 1948).

This is important for the international status of Israel's
administration of territory as an occupier.

It was explained that the international law of occupation has to do with whether a sovereign lost territory in war and may be expected to regain
the territory in peace negotiations leading to a treaty.

But here, there is no former sovereign. The British ended the Mandate and withdrew before states were formed. Without a former sovereign, the
internal treaty on occupation doesn't apply.

Here's a lecture by Natasha Hausdorff explaining Israel's position under international law from a conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91iD2R_nhxo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. . .

Here's a lecture by Natasha Hausdorff explaining Israel's position under >international law from a conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91iD2R_nhxo

Her discussion of the same issue more conversationally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__rl7I2d9Qk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jun 1, 2025 at 10:19:02 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I have very limited understanding of the status of Israel's boundaries
in international law. I've done basic reading; I know how and when
specific boundaries were drawn. But their legal status?

There are two ways an international boundary gets international
recognition at the time of declaration of a state, either by bi-lateral
or multi-lateral treaty in which the boundary is demarcated, or by international custom.

Well, there's a third way: you enforce the borders ruthlessly against anyone who attacks you and tries to cross them. If you can hold the territory by force, it becomes yours.

In the surrender of the Ottoman Empire (or whatever country it was) in
WWI, Turkey no longer claimed control of the Middle East and French and British Mandates carved up massive amounts of territory.

Legally, the Mandate was not colonization nor occupation. It was administration intended to lead to new states. But the Mandate --
created as part of the multi-lateral peace treaty ending World War One
-- has international legal recognition long predating the United
Nations.

The British drew a variety of borders for administrative purposes.
Pre-WWI, when there were various powers occupying Egypt over the
centuries, Turkey, France during the Napoleonic wars, and the British,
the line was drawn in 1906 between Britain and the Ottoman Empire
through unpopulated desert that wouldn't be disputed. Egypt wasn't a
country but had plenty of autonomy.

This boundary became one of the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine. The boundary between Israel and Jordan was based on the 1920 demarcation of
the eastern boundary of mandatory Palestine, although Transjordan was
added to the British, er, mandate/occupation/administration in 1921 but administered separately.

So various peace treaties Israel is party to incorporate these British
drawn administrative lines by reference as international boundaries.

This is international boundary BY CUSTOM, not by treaty, for it is
CUSTOMARY to recognize the boundaries of a state at time of declaration
as having been created within existing territory without a treaty to the contrary.

Is this how CHAZ managed to establish it's own state in the heart of Seattle during the Summer of Love?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jun 1, 2025 at 10:19:02 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I have very limited understanding of the status of Israel's boundaries
in international law. I've done basic reading; I know how and when
specific boundaries were drawn. But their legal status?

There are two ways an international boundary gets international
recognition at the time of declaration of a state, either by bi-lateral
or multi-lateral treaty in which the boundary is demarcated, or by >>international custom.

Well, there's a third way: you enforce the borders ruthlessly against anyone >who attacks you and tries to cross them. If you can hold the territory by >force, it becomes yours.

Yes, of course, like the Russian Empire and Putin pretending to be
Catherine the Great.

But this is about the nonstop accusation that Israel, by its mere
existence, is a colonizer, committing genocide, and illegally preventing
the innocent Arabs from establishing the Jew-free state in Palestine,
all of which is illegal under international law.

Except, if actual international law is applied without making an
exception for the Jews, then that supports Israel.

In the surrender of the Ottoman Empire (or whatever country it was) in
WWI, Turkey no longer claimed control of the Middle East and French and >>British Mandates carved up massive amounts of territory.

Legally, the Mandate was not colonization nor occupation. It was >>administration intended to lead to new states. But the Mandate --
created as part of the multi-lateral peace treaty ending World War One
-- has international legal recognition long predating the United
Nations.

The British drew a variety of borders for administrative purposes.
Pre-WWI, when there were various powers occupying Egypt over the
centuries, Turkey, France during the Napoleonic wars, and the British,
the line was drawn in 1906 between Britain and the Ottoman Empire
through unpopulated desert that wouldn't be disputed. Egypt wasn't a >>country but had plenty of autonomy.

This boundary became one of the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine. The >>boundary between Israel and Jordan was based on the 1920 demarcation of
the eastern boundary of mandatory Palestine, although Transjordan was
added to the British, er, mandate/occupation/administration in 1921 but >>administered separately.

So various peace treaties Israel is party to incorporate these British >>drawn administrative lines by reference as international boundaries.

This is international boundary BY CUSTOM, not by treaty, for it is >>CUSTOMARY to recognize the boundaries of a state at time of declaration
as having been created within existing territory without a treaty to the >>contrary.

Is this how CHAZ managed to establish it's own state in the heart of Seattle >during the Summer of Love?

I thought it was by not bathing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-06-01 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I have very limited understanding of the status of Israel's boundaries
in international law. I've done basic reading; I know how and when
specific boundaries were drawn. But their legal status?

To follow on with a related point, quite a number of countries recognize
a state called Palestine, although mostly not the main Western states.
(That may be on the verge of changing with threats by countries like the
UK and Canada since Oct 7 to recognize Palestine.) But what would the boundaries of that Palestine be? Would it be Gaza alone? Gaza plus the
West Bank as currently delimited by Israel? Or the Palestine that
Palestinians themselves actually want, best described as "from the river
to the sea" or "the one state solution" which envisions the Jews all
being dead or deported?

There are two ways an international boundary gets international
recognition at the time of declaration of a state, either by bi-lateral
or multi-lateral treaty in which the boundary is demarcated, or by international custom.

In the surrender of the Ottoman Empire (or whatever country it was) in
WWI, Turkey no longer claimed control of the Middle East and French and British Mandates carved up massive amounts of territory.

Legally, the Mandate was not colonization nor occupation. It was administration intended to lead to new states. But the Mandate --
created as part of the multi-lateral peace treaty ending World War One
-- has international legal recognition long predating the United
Nations.

The British drew a variety of borders for administrative purposes.
Pre-WWI, when there were various powers occupying Egypt over the
centuries, Turkey, France during the Napoleonic wars, and the British,
the line was drawn in 1906 between Britain and the Ottoman Empire
through unpopulated desert that wouldn't be disputed. Egypt wasn't a
country but had plenty of autonomy.

This boundary became one of the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine. The boundary between Israel and Jordan was based on the 1920 demarcation of
the eastern boundary of mandatory Palestine, although Transjordan was
added to the British, er, mandate/occupation/administration in 1921 but administered separately.

So various peace treaties Israel is party to incorporate these British
drawn administrative lines by reference as international boundaries.

This is international boundary BY CUSTOM, not by treaty, for it is
CUSTOMARY to recognize the boundaries of a state at time of declaration
as having been created within existing territory without a treaty to the contrary.

Israel was the only state to come out of Mandatory Palestine. The
surrounding Arab powers didn't recognize Israel and there were a series
of wars between 1948 and 1951. Significantly, no Arab state of Palestine formed (it declared its existence one day before the first invasion
occurred in the first war in 1948).

This is important for the international status of Israel's
administration of territory as an occupier.

It was explained that the international law of occupation has to do with whether a sovereign lost territory in war and may be expected to regain
the territory in peace negotiations leading to a treaty.

But here, there is no former sovereign. The British ended the Mandate and withdrew before states were formed. Without a former sovereign, the
internal treaty on occupation doesn't apply.

Here's a lecture by Natasha Hausdorff explaining Israel's position under international law from a conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91iD2R_nhxo

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

To follow on with a related point, quite a number of countries recognize
a state called Palestine, although mostly not the main Western states.
(That may be on the verge of changing with threats by countries like the
UK and Canada since Oct 7 to recognize Palestine.) But what would the >boundaries of that Palestine be? Would it be Gaza alone? Gaza plus the
West Bank as currently delimited by Israel? Or the Palestine that >Palestinians themselves actually want, best described as "from the river
to the sea" or "the one state solution" which envisions the Jews all
being dead or deported?

Recognizing a state within another state isn't allowed and would put
them in a technical state of war with Israel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-06-01 5:08 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

To follow on with a related point, quite a number of countries recognize
a state called Palestine, although mostly not the main Western states.
(That may be on the verge of changing with threats by countries like the
UK and Canada since Oct 7 to recognize Palestine.) But what would the
boundaries of that Palestine be? Would it be Gaza alone? Gaza plus the
West Bank as currently delimited by Israel? Or the Palestine that
Palestinians themselves actually want, best described as "from the river
to the sea" or "the one state solution" which envisions the Jews all
being dead or deported?

Recognizing a state within another state isn't allowed and would put
them in a technical state of war with Israel.

By "them" do you mean the countries that recognize Palestine, of which
there are already many? Or the new "state" of Palestine?

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-06-01 5:08 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

To follow on with a related point, quite a number of countries recognize >>>a state called Palestine, although mostly not the main Western states. >>>(That may be on the verge of changing with threats by countries like the >>>UK and Canada since Oct 7 to recognize Palestine.) But what would the >>>boundaries of that Palestine be? Would it be Gaza alone? Gaza plus the >>>West Bank as currently delimited by Israel? Or the Palestine that >>>Palestinians themselves actually want, best described as "from the river >>>to the sea" or "the one state solution" which envisions the Jews all >>>being dead or deported?

Recognizing a state within another state isn't allowed and would put
them in a technical state of war with Israel.

By "them" do you mean the countries that recognize Palestine, of which
there are already many? Or the new "state" of Palestine?

If Palestine is recognized as a state as opposed to the nonstate status
it has currently, and it is recognized to have definite boundaries
including a portion or all of Jerusalem, then that nation has put itself
into a technical state of war with Israel.

It's forbidden to recognize a new state including some or all of the
territory of an existing state in international law. That's literally a
state of war.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-06-01 8:10 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-06-01 5:08 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

To follow on with a related point, quite a number of countries recognize >>>> a state called Palestine, although mostly not the main Western states. >>>> (That may be on the verge of changing with threats by countries like the >>>> UK and Canada since Oct 7 to recognize Palestine.) But what would the
boundaries of that Palestine be? Would it be Gaza alone? Gaza plus the >>>> West Bank as currently delimited by Israel? Or the Palestine that
Palestinians themselves actually want, best described as "from the river >>>> to the sea" or "the one state solution" which envisions the Jews all
being dead or deported?

Recognizing a state within another state isn't allowed and would put
them in a technical state of war with Israel.

By "them" do you mean the countries that recognize Palestine, of which
there are already many? Or the new "state" of Palestine?

If Palestine is recognized as a state as opposed to the nonstate status
it has currently, and it is recognized to have definite boundaries
including a portion or all of Jerusalem, then that nation has put itself
into a technical state of war with Israel.

It's forbidden to recognize a new state including some or all of the territory of an existing state in international law. That's literally a
state of war.

An interesting conundrum then for Western countries thinking about
recognizing Palestine: if your country recognizes Palestine, you
automatically create a state of war between Palestine and Israel. Given
that your country ostensibly recognized Palestine in the interests of
"peace" (for some definition of peace), you're actually accomplishing
the opposite.

Of course the idea that Britain or France or Canada recognizing
Palestine will somehow bring about peace is laughable at the present
time anyway. It *might* be possible in a generation or two if
Palestinian children are taught to get along with their neighbours for
several decades but it is a non-starter now when the main driver of
Palestinian life is hatred and the desire to kill or deport all the Jews
from "their" land.

I doubt the Western countries that are talking about recognizing
Palestine actually want peace though, at least not peace for Israel.
They are pandering to their Arab voters, virtue-signalling to their
leftist peers, and indulging in their governing party's own
anti-Semitism by sticking it to the Jews. I expect some even hope for
regime change so that the defiant Netanyahu can be driven from office.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 15:56:12 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

To follow on with a related point, quite a number of countries recognize
a state called Palestine, although mostly not the main Western states.
(That may be on the verge of changing with threats by countries like the
UK and Canada since Oct 7 to recognize Palestine.) But what would the >boundaries of that Palestine be? Would it be Gaza alone? Gaza plus the
West Bank as currently delimited by Israel? Or the Palestine that >Palestinians themselves actually want, best described as "from the river
to the sea" or "the one state solution" which envisions the Jews all
being dead or deported?

I would think the answer to that question would have to be crystal
clear before it was legally recognized.

And HAMAS has said VERY clearly their definition. Though truth be told
it is little different from the majority Arab states of the Middle
East where the doctrine of "judenrein" has gone considerably further
than the Third Reich ever did. (Admittedly by exile rather than Zyklon
B)

Based on the actions of HAMAS it would be reasonable for some Knesset
member to make a speech and end it in imitation of Cato the Elder who
ended every speech he made in the Roman Senate regardless of the topic
of the speech with the words "Delenda est Carthago"

No question the international outrage would be earthshaking but based
on years of HAMAS daily launch of missiles and rockets against Israel
long before 7/10/2023 it's about the only "solution" I see that would
prevent HAMAS eventually going for round two or three or four.

Bottom line is that at the present time the one thing the
international community will not allow is to allow Israel to win a war
- no matter who started it.

If you assume from this I am a big fan of Douglas Murray you would be
right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 21:45:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Of course the idea that Britain or France or Canada recognizing
Palestine will somehow bring about peace is laughable at the present
time anyway. It *might* be possible in a generation or two if
Palestinian children are taught to get along with their neighbours for >several decades but it is a non-starter now when the main driver of >Palestinian life is hatred and the desire to kill or deport all the Jews
from "their" land.

There is simply no long term peace in that area that leaves HAMAS in
power - remember, these are the ones who produce math texts for
children with "problems" like "If Anwar kills 3 Israelis and Mohammed
kills 7 how many Israelis have been killed?"

As a Canadian I would support the deportation of any non-citizen
(INCLUDING those with "permanent resident" status) who advocated
genocide in the Middle East. After all, anyone who does has violated
their terms of application under their initial admission to Canada.

Canada deported Zundel and Lennikov (ex-SS and ex-KGB respectively -
Zundel's Canadian citizenship was voided after it was proven he had
perjured himself in his denial of past SS membership on his
citizenship application) and can certainly get rid of these. And the
Canada Student Loan program terms should be written to provide for
immediate repayment (and bear in mind CSLP debts are NOT discharged in
a personal bankruptcy situation) for those convicted of terrorist
offences under the Crminal Code. I've READ the pertinent paragraphs of
the Code and while I'm skeptical that all judges would enforce it,
they should.

Some may call that extreme but I do think it would improve my country.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)