Palestinians say they may have no choice but to take Israel to Hague court

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well --- actually it is recognized by both Hashemite Kingdom AND Israel.

A. The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers.

It is interesting that Israel claims the border of occupied Palestinian territory as theirs.

(COMMENT)

The context of what is a violation, in terms of Occupation Law, hinges on if Israel is considered a true Occupation Force; or the status of Palestine.

For instance, which "state" is claiming to be Occupied? Or does it matter?

Territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there. The limits within which this state of affairs exists determine the extent and duration of the occupation.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Oxford Manual 1880

Remember:

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - State Parties / Signatories

This is why we need to exercise the legal remedies that have to be tested. There are just a plethora of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well --- actually it is recognized by both Hashemite Kingdom AND Israel.

A. The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers.

It is interesting that Israel claims the border of occupied Palestinian territory as theirs.

(COMMENT)

The context of what is a violation, in terms of Occupation Law, hinges on if Israel is considered a true Occupation Force; or the status of Palestine.

For instance, which "state" is claiming to be Occupied? Or does it matter?

Territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there. The limits within which this state of affairs exists determine the extent and duration of the occupation.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Oxford Manual 1880

Remember:

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - State Parties / Signatories

This is why we need to exercise the legal remedies that have to be tested. There are just a plethora of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

The International Court Of Justice, the highest court in the world, has unanimously held that Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza in its Advisory Opinion on The Wall in 2004.

Now, if the question is the legitimacy of Israel, it seems to me inherent in reaching the decision that Israel occupies Palestine is a finding by that court that there is a legitimate state of Israel. Now, we do not know what the proper boundaries of the state are, for example there is a difference between the boundaries in the UN Partition Plan and the 1949 borders, but that there is a state of Israel occupying Palestine is a finding of the International Court of Justice.

This is true unless one is prepared to argue nonstates can be occupiers.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well --- actually it is recognized by both Hashemite Kingdom AND Israel.

It is interesting that Israel claims the border of occupied Palestinian territory as theirs.

(COMMENT)

The context of what is a violation, in terms of Occupation Law, hinges on if Israel is considered a true Occupation Force; or the status of Palestine.

For instance, which "state" is claiming to be Occupied? Or does it matter?



Remember:

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - State Parties / Signatories

This is why we need to exercise the legal remedies that have to be tested. There are just a plethora of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

The International Court Of Justice, the highest court in the world, has unanimously held that Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza in its Advisory Opinion on The Wall in 2004.

Now, if the question is the legitimacy of Israel, it seems to me inherent in reaching the decision that Israel occupies Palestine is a finding by that court that there is a legitimate state of Israel. Now, we do not know what the proper boundaries of the state are, for example there is a difference between the boundaries in the UN Partition Plan and the 1949 borders, but that there is a state of Israel occupying Palestine is a finding of the International Court of Justice.

This is true unless one is prepared to argue nonstates can be occupiers.

Here is a link to this Opinion.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Here is the issue the Court was deciding:

Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question: What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well --- actually it is recognized by both Hashemite Kingdom AND Israel.


(COMMENT)

The context of what is a violation, in terms of Occupation Law, hinges on if Israel is considered a true Occupation Force; or the status of Palestine.

For instance, which "state" is claiming to be Occupied? Or does it matter?



Remember:



This is why we need to exercise the legal remedies that have to be tested. There are just a plethora of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

The International Court Of Justice, the highest court in the world, has unanimously held that Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza in its Advisory Opinion on The Wall in 2004.

Now, if the question is the legitimacy of Israel, it seems to me inherent in reaching the decision that Israel occupies Palestine is a finding by that court that there is a legitimate state of Israel. Now, we do not know what the proper boundaries of the state are, for example there is a difference between the boundaries in the UN Partition Plan and the 1949 borders, but that there is a state of Israel occupying Palestine is a finding of the International Court of Justice.

This is true unless one is prepared to argue nonstates can be occupiers.

Here is a link to this Opinion.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Here is the issue the Court was deciding:

Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question: What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

The Court discusses the Mandate:

"70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that: "Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131). "

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Here is what The International Court Of Justice says about the settlements, that teh court finds violate The Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, paragraph 6:

"In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited. The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and: "to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979).

The Council reaffirmed its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law."


Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Look what a solid basis there is for the Court's finding that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies:

"96. The Court would moreover note that the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention approved that interpretation at their Conference on 15 July 1999. They issued a statement in which they "reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem". Subsequently, on 5 December 2001, the High Contracting Parties, referring in particular to Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, once again reaffirmed the "applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem". They further reminded the Contracting Parties participating in the Conference, the parties to the conflict, and the State of Israel as occupying Power, of their respective obligations.

97. Moreover, the Court would observe that the ICRC, whose special position with respect to execution of the Fourth Geneva Convention must be "recognized and respected at all times" by the parties pursuant to Article 142 of the Convention, has also expressed its opinion on the interpretation to be given to the Convention. In a declaration of 5 December 2001, it recalled that "the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem". "

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Here is The Intl Court of Justice discussion that concludes Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza.

"78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. "

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, a lot is riding on that Advisory Opinion.

The Court discusses the Mandate:

"70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that: "Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131). "

(COMMENT)

When most Advisory Opinions (AOs) are issued, they generally are not relative to an active case and they are not designed to settle a controversy. The AOs can be admitted as evidence, but are not definitive because the process used to derive the opinion was not adversarial, and not subject to examination.

The case of Palestine (state or not state) and Israel (Occupier or not Occupier), the Israel (with borders by Treaties or Undefined), are all basic question that need resolved. The advanced questions are, is the Occupation a de-facto Annexation, or does Israel need to make a formal Annexation. Is the rule of control sufficient? Or does it need to be recognized?

I believe this is a case of first impression. But that is just my laymen's opinion. It would stand to reason since there is an AO issued that would normally not be done if there were already precedent existing.

(ADVANTAGE)

If the legal advantage were to the Palestinians, then it would seem that they would welcome the opportunity to establish case law. But it seems they are not so sure of their position.

(LAW)

There is no question that there are plenty of charges to go around; both sides appear to have committed numerous violations in terms of War Crimes and Humanitarian Crimes under the GCIV and Rome Statues over the last half century. In such cases, each element to the offense for each crime must be proven. There will be claims and counter claims.

(INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION)

It will be a one long time-line. It will probably start at mid-night on 14 May '48. It will write the history of who officially attacked who, and step us through each major action and the crimes claimed by each side.

OR, they could start at the last war '73, and step through each major event from that point, each negotiation and each offer and rejection. The could establish a pattern of corrupted negotiations and which parties were at fault.

And this is just a thumbnail view of what needs to be examined.

We need to let the Justice System work and solve this even before civil reparations and solutions in equity are resolved.

A detailed examination of the facts needs to be pursued to separate long held notions in terms of fact from fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

The international court in the Hague is not recognized by the US, and I doubt Israel recognizes it either. The court only prosecutes captured war losers anyways. Please try again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, a lot is riding on that Advisory Opinion.

The Court discusses the Mandate:

"70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that: "Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131). "

(COMMENT)

When most Advisory Opinions (AOs) are issued, they generally are not relative to an active case and they are not designed to settle a controversy. The AOs can be admitted as evidence, but are not definitive because the process used to derive the opinion was not adversarial, and not subject to examination.

The case of Palestine (state or not state) and Israel (Occupier or not Occupier), the Israel (with borders by Treaties or Undefined), are all basic question that need resolved. The advanced questions are, is the Occupation a de-facto Annexation, or does Israel need to make a formal Annexation. Is the rule of control sufficient? Or does it need to be recognized?

I believe this is a case of first impression. But that is just my laymen's opinion. It would stand to reason since there is an AO issued that would normally not be done if there were already precedent existing.

(ADVANTAGE)

If the legal advantage were to the Palestinians, then it would seem that they would welcome the opportunity to establish case law. But it seems they are not so sure of their position.

(LAW)

There is no question that there are plenty of charges to go around; both sides appear to have committed numerous violations in terms of War Crimes and Humanitarian Crimes under the GCIV and Rome Statues over the last half century. In such cases, each element to the offense for each crime must be proven. There will be claims and counter claims.

(INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION)

It will be a one long time-line. It will probably start at mid-night on 14 May '48. It will write the history of who officially attacked who, and step us through each major action and the crimes claimed by each side.

OR, they could start at the last war '73, and step through each major event from that point, each negotiation and each offer and rejection. The could establish a pattern of corrupted negotiations and which parties were at fault.

And this is just a thumbnail view of what needs to be examined.

We need to let the Justice System work and solve this even before civil reparations and solutions in equity are resolved.

A detailed examination of the facts needs to be pursued to separate long held notions in terms of fact from fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

If the legal advantage were to the Palestinians, then it would seem that they would welcome the opportunity to establish case law.

The Palestinians have been seeking peace based on international law for as long as I can remember.

The road to peace is international law but nobody wants to go down that road.

 

[proudveteran06]

You are the one acting retarded or should I say mentally challenged. Israel is an Occupier in Palestine. It is Israel who has no sovereignty rights there. It is like if Mexico came and occupied Texas and the US complained to the International Criminal Court.
Would you call the US retarded in that scenario?

The United States and Mexico have a mutually recognized
land border----it shows up on maps in Mexico and on Maps in
the USA. Israel and jordan do not have a mutually recognized
land border and the term "palestine" does not represent a
land bound by mutually recognized borders or even recognized
sovereignty either. A comment by "the world court" ----is a joke'

There was never a trial----the comment can be used in evidence
at a future trial---but on its own ---it is virtually meaningless.
Have you ever seen the insided of a courtroom, sherri? Did
you understand what the idiot mendacious lawyers were saying?.
I did----that's why I can understand your double talk

Israel and jordan do not have a mutually recognized
land border

Israel has no borders. It doesn't have mutually recognized borders with anyone.

An international border was defined between Jordan and Palestine in 1922.

Israel doesn't have mutally recognized borders with Egypt or Jordan? I guess that means anytime they want to initiate war like they have in the past it's O.K. " Palestine" never existed as a Sovereign Country and never will. Only this fool on the entire board talks about the 1922 Borders that were never acknowledged or respected.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well --- actually it is recognized by both Hashemite Kingdom AND Israel.

A. The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers.

It is interesting that Israel claims the border of occupied Palestinian territory as theirs.

(COMMENT)

The context of what is a violation, in terms of Occupation Law, hinges on if Israel is considered a true Occupation Force; or the status of Palestine.

For instance, which "state" is claiming to be Occupied? Or does it matter?

Territory is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order there. The limits within which this state of affairs exists determine the extent and duration of the occupation.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Oxford Manual 1880

Remember:

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - State Parties / Signatories

This is why we need to exercise the legal remedies that have to be tested. There are just a plethora of questions that need to be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

For instance, which "state" is claiming to be Occupied? Or does it matter?

I guess that would be the same state that Jordan and Egypt occupied in the West Bank an Gaza.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, a lot is riding on that Advisory Opinion.

The Court discusses the Mandate:

"70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that: "Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131). "

(COMMENT)

When most Advisory Opinions (AOs) are issued, they generally are not relative to an active case and they are not designed to settle a controversy. The AOs can be admitted as evidence, but are not definitive because the process used to derive the opinion was not adversarial, and not subject to examination.

The case of Palestine (state or not state) and Israel (Occupier or not Occupier), the Israel (with borders by Treaties or Undefined), are all basic question that need resolved. The advanced questions are, is the Occupation a de-facto Annexation, or does Israel need to make a formal Annexation. Is the rule of control sufficient? Or does it need to be recognized?

I believe this is a case of first impression. But that is just my laymen's opinion. It would stand to reason since there is an AO issued that would normally not be done if there were already precedent existing.

(ADVANTAGE)

If the legal advantage were to the Palestinians, then it would seem that they would welcome the opportunity to establish case law. But it seems they are not so sure of their position.

(LAW)

There is no question that there are plenty of charges to go around; both sides appear to have committed numerous violations in terms of War Crimes and Humanitarian Crimes under the GCIV and Rome Statues over the last half century. In such cases, each element to the offense for each crime must be proven. There will be claims and counter claims.

(INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION)

It will be a one long time-line. It will probably start at mid-night on 14 May '48. It will write the history of who officially attacked who, and step us through each major action and the crimes claimed by each side.

OR, they could start at the last war '73, and step through each major event from that point, each negotiation and each offer and rejection. The could establish a pattern of corrupted negotiations and which parties were at fault.

And this is just a thumbnail view of what needs to be examined.

We need to let the Justice System work and solve this even before civil reparations and solutions in equity are resolved.

A detailed examination of the facts needs to be pursued to separate long held notions in terms of fact from fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

If the legal advantage were to the Palestinians, then it would seem that they would welcome the opportunity to establish case law.

The Palestinians have been seeking peace based on international law for as long as I can remember.

The road to peace is international law but nobody wants to go down that road.

It is Israel and the US who resist that road, there is a vote that takes place every year in the UN that tells us most of the rest of the world does want Israel to abide by intl law. Should I Pray for my countrys downfall so there might be a chance for an end to Occupation in Palestine?

 

[irosie91]

"Palestinians say they may have no choice but to take Israel to Hague court"


so what is holding things up? Sherri can write the petition