P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,789
- 4,414
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #41
toomuchtime_, et al,
This is legal wrangling and subterfuge.
(COMMENT)Article 49 begins by discussing the issue of forcible transfers of populations into or out of an occupied area and never distinguishes any other kind of transfer, so it is clear that the line, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" refers to forcible transfers of population and does not prohibit Israelis from moving into the area under their own free will. There is nothing in the Conventions or in the historical context of the notion of population transfers that suggests it does.
The areas of jurisdiction of the ICC are spelled out very specifically by the Rome Statute and iits later annexes and not all alleged violations of international laws fall under its juridiction.
The issue of construction of Israeli communities, or construction within Israeli communities, does not fall under any of the areas of the ICC's jurisdiction.
There is no reason for anyone to trust the impartiality of the judges in the ICC.
Everyone, in particularly the primary authors of both the GC and the RS know that the intent of Article 49 and 8-2b(viii), Respectively.
The purpose was to prevent the annexation by population. This is where the "Occupation Power" displaces the indigenous population and replaces with its own; which is exactly what Israel did and why neither the US or Israel could be a party to the Rome Statutes.
You cannot claim to be a country that is rooted in the Rule of Law, yet deny the law. If your interpretation was correct, then neither the US or Israel should be unwilling to litigate and stipulate to the jurisdiction and subsequent mediation. But in fact, they both know that they are in the wrong; Israel for doing it and the US for aiding and abetting.
We know that all legal systems fall prey to "loop hole" and "political ostrich" effects. The suppression of jurisdiction, the interpretation of law, and the implementation of adverse protocols are all techniques used to thwart justice.
Just as the argument used by the Palestinian - that they don't use terrorist tactics - are merely manipulations of the facts, so it is that any attempt to claim that there is no probable cause to believe Israel is a defacto violator of Occupation Law, is as manipulative and an attempt to hide from the attempt to determine the facts and truth.
Any attempt to impune the character of the court, or any officer there to, is also subterfuge. Again it is the paranoia that all litigants claim when they have a very week case and know there is evidence that can be detrimental to their claim of innocents.
Most Respectfully,
R
Again, the GC conventions clearly refer to forcible transfers of population, and this did not occur in the West Bank. If you want to talk about original intent, the original intent of the Fourth Geneva Conventions was to deal the the occupation of sovereign territory of on high contracting party by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank and Gaza were not recognized as the sovereign territory of any nation, the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not apply, thus there is no legal occupation as described in that treaty and none of article 49 is relevant.
Annexation by population is not a legal principle, it is a propaganda line. Under the spin you are putting on article 49, it would have been a war crime for the Israeli government to have allowed a single Israeli to have moved into the West Bank, which is preposterous. What's more, nations aren't guilty of war crimes under customary international law, individuals are, so who would be the war criminal? The Israeli who moved of his own free will?
There are land disputes and boundary disputes which the PA refuses to negotiate, but as the Fourth Geneva Conventions are written, there are no war crimes here.
Because of Arab objections, Israel remains the only member of the UN which has never been allowed to serve on the Security Council and because of Arab objections Israel's Magen David Alom was denied membership in the International Red Cross until 2006. Israel has every reason to be suspicious of bias from international organizations, and no honest person who is familiar with the facts would dismiss these concerns as paranoia.
What's more, nations aren't guilty of war crimes under customary international law, individuals are, so who would be the war criminal? The Israeli who moved of his own free will?
Good question. If an Israeli moved to the West Bank and was under Palestinian law, that would be an immigration issue. If that same person moved to the West Bank and is under Israeli law then he would be a settler and the responsibility would be the relevant Israeli authorities.