Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
Roudy, et al,
I perfer not to assign a value to human life, or do a comparative analysis on that level.
(COMMENT)Neither side has clean hands, but you cannot compare Israeli or American hands to those of the Palestinians or other Muslim nations or groups. We're talking about getting a parking ticket vs armed robbery.
There is a very strong correlation between the political-lawlessness exhibited - and - the pro-Palestinian element throughout the Middle East Region. There are probably more life threatening and deadly events initiated by the Palestinians than by any other self-proclaimed hostile group in the world. And the sheer number of initiation acts of violence and deadly events is the more significant than the body count as a consequence of the action.
There is probably no segment of the human species more associate with secular violence than the group collectively known as Palestinian; and that number pales in comparison to the violence associated with Palestinians with the Middle Eastern intolerance to non-practitioners of religions dominant in the region. In the Western World, it is generally understood that all the deaths as a result of a criminal act - including the deaths of the criminals, the innocent, the armed responders to the criminal event, and those sponsors aiding and abetting the initiators of the criminal events, are laid at the feet of the criminals and those that aided the criminals.
I have, over the years, heard nearly every excuse there has ever been raised to justify the brutality perpetrated, the violence initiated, and the deadly contact associated with the anti-Israeli movement of the Fanatical Palestinian cause. The acts of terror, especially bombings, rocket attacks, hijackings, and assassinations, committed by operators of Palestinian organizations are the ultimate examples of guerrilla (asymmetrical) warfare, and extremely difficult at stopping these criminals masquerading as warriors for a righteous cause.
Most Respectfully,
R
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
(COMMENT)One problem with your analysis is that the Palestinians are defending their country. That is a legal activity under international law.
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
It was over a million and they died at the hands of US bombs.What hundreds of thousands, Ima? Have you forgotten that most of the people killed in Iraq were killed by outside Muslim insurgents who came pouring in because they didn't want Iraq to be a democracy.
Rocket attacks are war crimes. But they've only killed 59 Israeli's since 2001.Most respectfully, if you want to investigate "war crimes" the first place you'd have to focus on would be Arab / Muslim countries. They are the prime violators and commit the worst crimes against humanity one can envision. The war crimes prosecutor should have his hands full for the next 100 years.
Amnesty issued a report late last week criticizing Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli civilians as "crimes against humanity" Palestinian Authority Cabinet Secretary Ahmed Abdul Rahman said that although the Palestinian Authority condemns the bombings of Israeli civilians, they are "a normal consequence of their occupation and rejection of Palestinian rights."
The report, "Without Distinction: Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups" addresses what it identifies as 130 attacks since the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000 that have resulted in the deaths of 350 Israeli citizens -- including more than 60 children.
"The attacks by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law," Amnesty says in the report.
Amnesty decries Palestinian 'crimes against humanity' | j. the Jewish news weekly of Northern California
Glad you get it. You will find other Muslim cultures / groups exhibiting barbaric behavior similar to the Palestinians, if not more. The reason Palestinians seem to get away with it is that they are painted as the one group that can do no wrong aka eternal victims of the evil Jews. In other words, in their warped minds, the Jews are the perfect culprits, and the Palestinians comprise the perfect victims. And as you mentioned, a lot of this has to do with lack of respect for human life (including their own kind) among many Muslim / Arab cultures.Roudy, et al,
I perfer not to assign a value to human life, or do a comparative analysis on that level.
(COMMENT)Neither side has clean hands, but you cannot compare Israeli or American hands to those of the Palestinians or other Muslim nations or groups. We're talking about getting a parking ticket vs armed robbery.
There is a very strong correlation between the political-lawlessness exhibited - and - the pro-Palestinian element throughout the Middle East Region. There are probably more life threatening and deadly events initiated by the Palestinians than by any other self-proclaimed hostile group in the world. And the sheer number of initiation acts of violence and deadly events is the more significant than the body count as a consequence of the action.
There is probably no segment of the human species more associate with secular violence than the group collectively known as Palestinian; and that number pales in comparison to the violence associated with Palestinians with the Middle Eastern intolerance to non-practitioners of religions dominant in the region. In the Western World, it is generally understood that all the deaths as a result of a criminal act - including the deaths of the criminals, the innocent, the armed responders to the criminal event, and those sponsors aiding and abetting the initiators of the criminal events, are laid at the feet of the criminals and those that aided the criminals.
I have, over the years, heard nearly every excuse there has ever been raised to justify the brutality perpetrated, the violence initiated, and the deadly contact associated with the anti-Israeli movement of the Fanatical Palestinian cause. The acts of terror, especially bombings, rocket attacks, hijackings, and assassinations, committed by operators of Palestinian organizations are the ultimate examples of guerrilla (asymmetrical) warfare, and extremely difficult at stopping these criminals masquerading as warriors for a righteous cause.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well damn, you're dumb if you haven't heard the same stories about Muslims shooting from mosques, hospitals, and homes, using ambulances to carry terrorists, weapons and bombs, and hiding behind their own women and kids, from US forces that foughtthem in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's nothing new.Let's check out the animals operate, apparently they care less for their own than others do:
...Inside the map, the terrorists also marked sniper positions, as well as the location of roadside bombs, anti-tank bombs and landmines," Chief Intelligence Officer Brig.-Gen. Yuval Halamish said Thursday.
Halamish said that the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. On the map, a brown dot is marked next to a mosque representing a nearby sniper position.
"This is a civilian area and you can see on the map how Hamas booby-trapped the entrance to homes in order to hit the IDF," Halamish said. In another case, a large explosive device was marked on the map next to a gas station. Had it been detonated it would have likely destroyed the gas station as well, killing and wounding civilians who live in the area.
Israel Found Evidence Of Hamas' Crimes Against Humanity
well, damn...if a blogger named captainfish says it, it must be true...
P F Tinmore, et al,
Hummm, it does not matter if if you are a "state" or non-state."
(COMMENT)One problem with your analysis is that the Palestinians are defending their country. That is a legal activity under international law.
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
The defense of the state, as a justification, does not grant an exemption to commit "war crimes;" or conduct terrorist activities that are intentionally directed against civilian targets of no military value, or civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I'm assuming that you are not trying to justify or promote terrorist activities being conducted by designate terrorist organization.
Most Respectfully,
R
It's a shame that Ima couldn't meet the former Iraqi General; who said that the WMDs were flown out.The US went into Iraq for the purpose of making a regime change. Mission accomplished.
No, the US went into Iraq to get Saddam's (non-existant) WMD. Remember?
Saddam's general: 'WMDs were flown out of Iraq!'
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) A senior Palestinian official is warning that the West Bank government will pursue war crime charges against Israel if it doesn't stop settlement construction.
Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said late Monday that "many countries" have urged the Palestinian Authority not to use its new status to seek war crimes charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court, a U.N. body.
Shaath says that "by continuing these war crimes of settlement activities" on occupied territories, Israel is "pushing and forcing us to go to the ICC."
Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges - Yahoo! News
Two things I most honestly have to comment.
When it comes to the Palestinian "state", there are few issues that holds Israel back. If they have a state withing the 67 borders, it will mean they will have the ability to harm Israel much worse.
However, that we can attack and have a war with a STATE, which means the UN will have no ground blaming us if we attack back.
Issue number 2, is that the Palestinians realize that terror gets payed of. That is something we don't want.
Issue number 3, is, what exactly a Palestinian country means? It means that Israel CAN and SHOULD transfer all "Israeli Arabs" to Gaza or WB. Since settlers will naturally go back to the greenline, it's only fair.
Number 4 is my favourite. If there will be a Palestinian state, it means all goodies, fuel, electricity, taxes, and all kind of "favors" given to the enemy on the back of the Israeli worker, is stopped.
It will also mean that any rocket, attack on civilians OR Israeli soldiers, and any hostile activity of that Palestinian state will mean Israel CAN and SHOULD attack back.
If all that, and the questions above, are being solved in a normal sane manner, i don't see what the problem is.
Two things I most honestly have to comment.
When it comes to the Palestinian "state", there are few issues that holds Israel back. If they have a state withing the 67 borders, it will mean they will have the ability to harm Israel much worse.
However, that we can attack and have a war with a STATE, which means the UN will have no ground blaming us if we attack back.
Issue number 2, is that the Palestinians realize that terror gets payed of. That is something we don't want.
Issue number 3, is, what exactly a Palestinian country means? It means that Israel CAN and SHOULD transfer all "Israeli Arabs" to Gaza or WB. Since settlers will naturally go back to the greenline, it's only fair.
Number 4 is my favourite. If there will be a Palestinian state, it means all goodies, fuel, electricity, taxes, and all kind of "favors" given to the enemy on the back of the Israeli worker, is stopped.
It will also mean that any rocket, attack on civilians OR Israeli soldiers, and any hostile activity of that Palestinian state will mean Israel CAN and SHOULD attack back.
If all that, and the questions above, are being solved in a normal sane manner, i don't see what the problem is.
Of course that would only apply after Israel ends its occupation.
That is not going to happen.
Tinmore the scumbag goes boldly to where most Islamists and neo Nazis go, which is, justifying Palestinian animals targetting women and kids intentionally. And then claiming falsely that the UN also sanctions Palestinians shooting at civilians.P F Tinmore, et al,
Hummm, it does not matter if if you are a "state" or non-state."
(COMMENT)One problem with your analysis is that the Palestinians are defending their country. That is a legal activity under international law.
The defense of the state, as a justification, does not grant an exemption to commit "war crimes;" or conduct terrorist activities that are intentionally directed against civilian targets of no military value, or civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I'm assuming that you are not trying to justify or promote terrorist activities being conducted by designate terrorist organization.
Most Respectfully,
R
I think the confusing thing is that "civilian" is not the definitive term in international law. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians, including members of Hamas, are civilians. The legal term is "protected persons." Nationals of an occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, are specifically excluded from the protected persons category.
The terrorist designation is merely political name calling. The Palestinians do not target protected persons and they do not operate outside their own borders.
They do not fit the definition of terrorists.
(COMMENT)I think the confusing thing is that "civilian" is not the definitive term in international law. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians, including members of Hamas, are civilians. The legal term is "protected persons." Nationals of an occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, are specifically excluded from the protected persons category.
The terrorist designation is merely political name calling. The Palestinians do not target protected persons and they do not operate outside their own borders.
They do not fit the definition of terrorists.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
SOURCES:
General Assembly Resolution A/RES/66/105 13 January 2012 Measures to eliminate international terrorism said:1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by
whomsoever committed;
4. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of
terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political
purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a
political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may
be invoked to justify them;
7. Reiterates its call upon States to refrain from financing, encouraging,
providing training for or otherwise supporting terrorist activities;
9. Urges States to ensure that their nationals or other persons and entities
within their territory that wilfully provide or collect funds for the benefit of persons
or entities who commit, or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts are punished by penalties consistent with the grave
nature of such acts;
SOURCE: United Nations Official Document
Article 8 said:(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
I find it amazing that you went through all this effort trying to explain simple facts to a hopeless case like Tinmore, who's basically a terrorist spokesperson for Hamas. My complements for your patience and tenacity.P F Tinmore, et al,
A famous US Supreme Court Justice (Potter Stewart) once wrote that: "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."
I say, its not so hard to define a terrorist. Their actions speak for themselves.
(COMMENT)I think the confusing thing is that "civilian" is not the definitive term in international law. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians, including members of Hamas, are civilians. The legal term is "protected persons." Nationals of an occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, are specifically excluded from the protected persons category.
The terrorist designation is merely political name calling. The Palestinians do not target protected persons and they do not operate outside their own borders.
They do not fit the definition of terrorists.
HAMAS (or any other number of Palestinian Terrorist Groups I could name) is not an organization that is covered by the "protected persons" definition.
You are attempting to use the GCVI definition of a protected person to shield terrorist. It is a good propaganda effort, but totally bogus.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
SOURCES:
The implanted idea of "inside or outside borders" is a red herring. That distinction is only relevant to specifications relative to "domestic" vs "international" vs "regional." It doesn't affect the basic idea of terrorism or the terrorist that perpetrates the action. Internationally, we say: "international, regional, subregional and national levels" But again, this has no bearing on who is a terrorist.
General Assembly Resolution A/RES/66/105 13 January 2012 Measures to eliminate international terrorism said:1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by
whomsoever committed;
4. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of
terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political
purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a
political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may
be invoked to justify them;
7. Reiterates its call upon States to refrain from financing, encouraging,
providing training for or otherwise supporting terrorist activities;
9. Urges States to ensure that their nationals or other persons and entities
within their territory that wilfully provide or collect funds for the benefit of persons
or entities who commit, or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts are punished by penalties consistent with the grave
nature of such acts;
SOURCE: United Nations Official Document
Terrorist do not live in a vacuum. And this is especially true of HAMAS, PA, PLO, PIJ, Hezbollah, etc. They derive support from their constituents. To support and assist (or aid and abet) terrorist is condemned as strongly as performing the act itself.
Another Red Herring is the attempt to distinguish unarmed Israeli Citizens (inside or outside Israel), not party to the undeclared conflict under an cease-fire, as some sort of enemy combat (as opposed to a protected person) while assigning protected persons status to Palestinians that terrorize them. This is absurd. The one doing the bombing, the ambush, the drive-by, the rocket attack on the unarmed is the terrorist. The unarmed being attacked are civilians as identified in the International Code.
Article 8 said:(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
It does not matter whether the Palestinians are a signatory or not. It does not matter whether they are uniformed and regular military, irregular forces, paramilitary, or militia. If they are acting in the name of HAMAS, they are committing a "war crime." The fact that the HAMAS are terrorists, duly elected by the general population, only makes the general population more culpable; not less. It defines the moral and ethical character. It tells of how weak their honesty, integrity and values are. The fact that they would even try to hide behind the protected persons skirts while committing acts of terrorism shows just how little honor and bravery they have. By definition, you cannot fire a gun, bomb a car, shoot-up a bus of old folks, or launch a halo of rockets, and still be a protected person.
I find it rather amazing there are people out there that would even attempt to shield terrorist war crimes using the protected persons defense. There is absolutely no justification for the action of HAMAS, or any other Palestinian Terrorist Organization. And the claim that they are not a terrorist organization is refuted by the long list of terrorist acts perpetrated in their name.
Most Respectfully,
R
Two things I most honestly have to comment.
When it comes to the Palestinian "state", there are few issues that holds Israel back. If they have a state withing the 67 borders, it will mean they will have the ability to harm Israel much worse.
However, that we can attack and have a war with a STATE, which means the UN will have no ground blaming us if we attack back.
Issue number 2, is that the Palestinians realize that terror gets payed of. That is something we don't want.
Issue number 3, is, what exactly a Palestinian country means? It means that Israel CAN and SHOULD transfer all "Israeli Arabs" to Gaza or WB. Since settlers will naturally go back to the greenline, it's only fair.
Number 4 is my favourite. If there will be a Palestinian state, it means all goodies, fuel, electricity, taxes, and all kind of "favors" given to the enemy on the back of the Israeli worker, is stopped.
It will also mean that any rocket, attack on civilians OR Israeli soldiers, and any hostile activity of that Palestinian state will mean Israel CAN and SHOULD attack back.
If all that, and the questions above, are being solved in a normal sane manner, i don't see what the problem is.
Of course that would only apply after Israel ends its occupation.
That is not going to happen.
Do you, as one who does not eccept Israel's right to exist, agree with withdrawing from WB and stopping the Gaza blockade, as a agreement to stop terror against Israel, and Hamas' war crimes?
