Boycott Israel

[Shusha]

You appear to be unfamiliar with International Law.

 

[Shusha]

You appear to be unfamiliar with International Law.

 

[Shusha]

Sorry, I couldn't decide.

 

[Shusha]

I offered a solution, namely the Israelis, both military and settlers, should return to Israel. This will render acts of resistance to the occupation obsolete.

It didn't work with Gaza. No part of Gaza is "occupied" by either military or settlers. The boundary between Gaza and Israel is clear. And yet the Gazans are still resisting.

Why is that, do you think?

Gaza is still occupied. You do not understand that having a military on a border which is closed while children nearby are sniped at, controlling the airspace, forbidding fishermen to go beyond three miles in their own waters, and periodically massacring the civilian population so that the entire Gaza is like a concentration camp, is effective occupation.

Let's review. You said that the removal of military and settlers from territory will render acts of resistance obsolete and will therefore result in a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Israel unilaterally removed all military and all settlers from Gaza. And yet the Gazans still resist. It did not result in peace. It did not provide a solution.

Knowing this, why do you assert that these types of unilateral actions by Israel will bring peace? Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it will bring different results.

(And I fully agree with Rocco that your interpretation of the law is unsound).

Please see my Post #1537 above.

You present an opinion on law from someone at Oxford; a quote from Ban Ki Moon; and an opinion by a non-profit organization from ten years ago and you consider that LAW?!

Wowsa.

Address the substance of my post -- you claim that removal of military and civilian persons from a territory will remove the necessity of resistance and will therefore bring peace. I have demonstrated that this is not so using the example of Gaza.

 

[Eloy]

What does Israel need to do to live in peace? What do the Palestinians and Gazans have to do?

Creating settlements is forbidden in international law.
The limited self-government allowed in the occupied territories is a sham, similar to the Judenräte of occupied Poland in the last century.
Israel and you need to understand these things.

You dodged my question. What should Israel do in order to have peace? What should the Palestinians and Gazans do in order to have peace?

(And no, creating settlements is not forbidden in international law. See my thread titled "Settlements Are Not Illegal".)

The answer to your first question is that the Israelis should end their brutal occupation of the State of Palestine and learn how to get along with their nearest neighbors.
The answer to your second question is that the Palestinians should persuade the Israelis to go home.

And Yes, the Israeli settlements are in breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which forbids an occupier from transferring its own civilians into the territory it occupies. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
ICRC service

 

[Eloy]

I offered a solution, namely the Israelis, both military and settlers, should return to Israel. This will render acts of resistance to the occupation obsolete.

It didn't work with Gaza. No part of Gaza is "occupied" by either military or settlers. The boundary between Gaza and Israel is clear. And yet the Gazans are still resisting.

Why is that, do you think?

Gaza is still occupied. You do not understand that having a military on a border which is closed while children nearby are sniped at, controlling the airspace, forbidding fishermen to go beyond three miles in their own waters, and periodically massacring the civilian population so that the entire Gaza is like a concentration camp, is effective occupation.

Let's review. You said that the removal of military and settlers from territory will render acts of resistance obsolete and will therefore result in a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Israel unilaterally removed all military and all settlers from Gaza. And yet the Gazans still resist. It did not result in peace. It did not provide a solution.

Knowing this, why do you assert that these types of unilateral actions by Israel will bring peace? Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it will bring different results.

(And I fully agree with Rocco that your interpretation of the law is unsound).

Please see my Post #1537 above.

You present an opinion on law from someone at Oxford; a quote from Ban Ki Moon; and an opinion by a non-profit organization from ten years ago and you consider that LAW?!

Wowsa.

Address the substance of my post -- you claim that removal of military and civilian persons from a territory will remove the necessity of resistance and will therefore bring peace. I have demonstrated that this is not so using the example of Gaza.

Please see my Post #1545 above.

 

[Shusha]

The answer to your first question is that the Israelis should end their brutal occupation of the State of Palestine and learn how to get along with their nearest neighbors.
The answer to your second question is that the Palestinians should persuade the Israelis to go home.

And Yes, the Israeli settlements are in breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which forbids an occupier from transferring its own civilians into the territory it occupies. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
ICRC service

Everything in your post depends on there being existing boundaries between Israel and Palestine. There are none. Until we define what territories are "occupied" and what is "home" your request is entirely meaningless.

Second, we must define what it means to be "occupied" as Israel withdrew from Gaza entirely but some people (in error) still consider it "occupied".

So define the territory. Define the conditions. Only then can we know if Israel has met them.

 

[Shusha]

And we really should take this over to the End the Occupation thread since we are badly derailing this one.

 

[Eloy]

The answer to your first question is that the Israelis should end their brutal occupation of the State of Palestine and learn how to get along with their nearest neighbors.
The answer to your second question is that the Palestinians should persuade the Israelis to go home.

And Yes, the Israeli settlements are in breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which forbids an occupier from transferring its own civilians into the territory it occupies. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
ICRC service

Everything in your post depends on there being existing boundaries between Israel and Palestine. There are none. Until we define what territories are "occupied" and what is "home" your request is entirely meaningless.

Second, we must define what it means to be "occupied" as Israel withdrew from Gaza entirely but some people (in error) still consider it "occupied".

So define the territory. Define the conditions. Only then can we know if Israel has met them.

All the countries of the world and top jurists are in agreement that the Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal. Israel is a scofflaw rogue state, I'm afraid.

 

[Shusha]

The answer to your first question is that the Israelis should end their brutal occupation of the State of Palestine and learn how to get along with their nearest neighbors.
The answer to your second question is that the Palestinians should persuade the Israelis to go home.

And Yes, the Israeli settlements are in breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which forbids an occupier from transferring its own civilians into the territory it occupies. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
ICRC service

Everything in your post depends on there being existing boundaries between Israel and Palestine. There are none. Until we define what territories are "occupied" and what is "home" your request is entirely meaningless.

Second, we must define what it means to be "occupied" as Israel withdrew from Gaza entirely but some people (in error) still consider it "occupied".

So define the territory. Define the conditions. Only then can we know if Israel has met them.

All the countries of the world and top jurists are in agreement that the Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal. Israel is a scofflaw rogue state, I'm afraid.

Then it should be super easy to tell me where the borders are between Israel and Palestine. And back up your claim with quotes to legal instruments outlining those boundaries.

(and btw, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy)

 

[Shusha]

Why in hell would Israel abandon more territory only to be told that she is still occupying that territory as is what happened in Gaza? It would be ridiculous to give up territory for no purpose -- she is still considered an "occupier", still held to unreasonable standards; still demonized and vilified; still being attacked (resisted); and still would have no end-of-conflict agreement or peace treaty in sight. Why would she do that?

 

[Eloy]

The answer to your first question is that the Israelis should end their brutal occupation of the State of Palestine and learn how to get along with their nearest neighbors.
The answer to your second question is that the Palestinians should persuade the Israelis to go home.

And Yes, the Israeli settlements are in breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which forbids an occupier from transferring its own civilians into the territory it occupies. "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
ICRC service

Everything in your post depends on there being existing boundaries between Israel and Palestine. There are none. Until we define what territories are "occupied" and what is "home" your request is entirely meaningless.

Second, we must define what it means to be "occupied" as Israel withdrew from Gaza entirely but some people (in error) still consider it "occupied".

So define the territory. Define the conditions. Only then can we know if Israel has met them.

All the countries of the world and top jurists are in agreement that the Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal. Israel is a scofflaw rogue state, I'm afraid.

Then it should be super easy to tell me where the borders are between Israel and Palestine. And back up your claim with quotes to legal instruments outlining those boundaries.

(and btw, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy)

Expert jurists and international treaty conventions are hardly populum.
Please study the map below.

 

[Shusha]

Oh. Well, then. You plucked a map off the internet. It MUST be true. /sarcasm

 

[Shusha]

Why don't you find me the thesis of one of these "top jurists" and link me to it? One that provides the definitive boundaries between Palestine and Israel.

 

[Shusha]

And just so you can see that I put my money where my mouth is, here is a "top jurist" and his legal analysis of why the territory is under Israel sovereignty.

 

[Eloy]

And just so you can see that I put my money where my mouth is, here is a "top jurist" and his legal analysis of why the territory is under Israel sovereignty.

Forgive me but I will stick with the rest of the world, the United Nations, and experts in international law. It is your choice to disregard the overwhelming and cogent evidence regarding Israel's border. Perhaps you can get consolation from knowing that one member state of the United Nations believes as you do.

 

[Shusha]

Its always amusing when posters claim they have overwhelming evidence regarding Israel's border with "Palestine" and yet are unable to produce any.

 

[Eloy]

I could go on providing you with answers but we both know I will be unable to persuade you that Israel's border of 1967 is the proper one because it is the one proposed in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
So let's call the whole thing off.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

OH, you are too funny --- just too funny.

You appear to be unfamiliar with International Law.

(COMMENT)

Exactly what law is involved in the "Creating settlements is forbidden in international law:" The Oslo Accord II (AKA: Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Israeli has both full Civil and Security Control) Area C. The issue of the "Settlements" is part of the "Permanent Status of Negotiations." It appears that the PLO Leadership will probably not get anywhere in the Courts trying to push this as a violation of International Law. The entire world is a witness to the Accord Process (Norway) and the Nobel Committee had eyes on the process early on. So, the a campaign to crush Israel by making it appear to be illegal; when in fact it was initiated in diplomatic fashion.

ARTICLE XII
Arrangements for Security and Public Order
5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached Map No. 2.
​

The strategy "might" take the shape of an entanglement with an argument on the appearance of a de facto annexation. However, that is going to be a hard legal fight since the Israelis have never expressed an interest or an attempt to annex the Area "C" territory.

SO!!! --- Since I am (as you say) "unfamiliar with International Law" --- THEN, maybe would you enlighten me as to which law we are talking about.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Oh dear. You think 242 delineates borders between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine?