You may have missed this: Israel fesses up to war crimes

[Beelzebub]

We should be grateful to the Netanyahu government for its straightforwardness. It determined this week that the settlements are a punishment – from now on, it’s official.

We should also ask the same government to order the cessation of all investigations, real and fabricated, of “price tag” attacks, because then the nationalization of roughly 4,000 dunams of land belonging to five Palestinian villages, in response to the murder of the three teenagers, is a price tag that is much heavier (and a greater crime) than all the defamatory graffiti, burned mosques and slashed tires. It is also a clear case of collective punishment, of the sort that is considered a war crime under international law.

So leave the investigations of trifling incidents alone. Leave the shrieks over the appropriations alone too; they will not change anything. The battle has been decided. The settlers have won. The settlements have accomplished their goal. The two-state solution is dead. Anyone who does not believe that should go to Gush Etzion.

It is not clear when or how Gush Etzion became a “consensus.” Suddenly – like the man in the old song made famous by Shlomo Artzi, who got up in the morning feeling like he was a nation – Gush Etzion arose and felt it was a national consensus.

Everyone is in agreement that it has been agreed upon; Gush Etzion from time immemorial. And it is not the only bloc that is agreed upon; so are the Jordan Valley and Ma’aleh Adumim, with its terrifying and hilly area, and Ariel goes without saying. Look at the map and you will realize how the supposed Palestinian state-to-be was put to death. From what remains it might be possible to establish another amusement park, “Mini-Palestine,” but no more than that.

The 4,000 dunams that have been stolen, something more than 1,000 dunams for each murdered Israeli teenager, have not slept much. It is true that this is territory that falls under the jurisdiction of Gvaot, but who’s counting?

What is there to count anymore, when within a year or two the hills will become Gvaot, another (Jewish) city in occupied Palestine with thousands of pioneering, principled and Zionist settler families, with a community center built by the national lottery and a swimming pool, boarding schools for girls and yeshivas, all on stolen land. The euphemistic term is “state-owned land,” deep in the bosom of the warm and pleasant consensus, and no country on earth recognizes it, nor can a single criterion of justice tolerate it.

Gush Etzion of the consensus was established after the 1967 war as the mother of all Israeli acts of recognition of the right of return. Not the Palestinian right of return, of course, only the Jewish one.

Land that had been conquered in 1948 was returned to its rightful owners, whose descendants returned en masse to their stolen land. How very just. It is true that the current area of Gush Etzion is seven times larger than the original, but who’s counting that either? The main thing is that the children have returned to their borders and the right of return was granted, and generously.

The right of return of 650,000 Palestinian refugees who lost their world in 1948 must not even be mentioned. But a handful of Gush Etzion’s offspring is allowed to return. Returning to Ein Tzurim, Kfar Etzion and Masu’ot Yitzhak is a matter of right; returning to the adjacent villages of Zakaria, Ajur or Beit Natif is heresy. That, after all, is Israeli justice, which did not even seek out a fig leaf for itself in Gush Etzion.

But Gush Etzion did not become just another abandoned district of deprivation and dispossession. It became a consensus. Why? Because. Because that is what the settlers said, what the politicians decided, what was written in the newspapers and what was broadcast on television. The Israelis were never asked, but they all know already that everyone agrees because that is what they were told. Ibei Hanahal, Ma’aleh Amos and Ma’aleh Rehavam — whoever heard of them?

Twenty thousand settlers, 20 communities, not including Efrat, which is independent – and see, we have returned to Alon Shvut, to Tekoa, to Bat Ayin. The Green Line? A tired old joke. Now comes the retaliatory action of the government of the Bar-Ilan speech to wipe it off the map once and for all (as if that did not happen long ago).

The Israelis who shout for the two-state solution say in the same breath that the settlement blocs belong to us. And they do – they are our disease, our terminal disease, which somehow remains to be diagnosed.

Advertisement


This could be a sticky one.
All that Israel has left to argue is 'Should collective punishment BE a war crime?"

Sadly, we all still remember the fighting of WWII, and the answer is 'Yes'.

 

[Daniyel]

Not even close, but indeed a very nice try.
Now tell me, who actually care about the Israelis on the Pally side?

 

[Beelzebub]

Many.
Just they are not the priority now. Israelis are the persecutors.

 

[Beelzebub]

As to "not even close" I would say it's a direct hit.

Jerusalem (AFP) - Israel announced Sunday it will expropriate 400 hectares (988 acres) of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, angering the Palestinians and alarming Israeli peace campaigners.

The move to seize the land, in the Bethlehem area in the south of the territory, is the biggest of its kind in three decades, Peace Now said.

"On the instructions of the political echelon... 4,000 dunams at Gevaot (settlement) is declared as state land," said the army department charged with administering civil affairs in occupied territory, laying down a 45-day period for any appeal.

It said the move stemmed from political decisions taken after the June killing of three Israeli teenagers snatched from a roadside in the same area, known to Israelis as the Gush Etzion settlement bloc.

Israel has named three Palestinians from the southern West Bank city of Hebron as being behind the murders.

The Etzion settlements council welcomed Sunday's announcement and said it was the prelude to the expansion of the current Gevaot settlement.

It "paves the way for the new city of Gevaot", it said in a statement.

"The goal of the murderers of those three youths was to sow fear among us, to disrupt our daily lives and to call into doubt our right to the land," it said. "Our response is to strengthen settlement."

Israel plans to expropriate 400 hectares of West Bank army says - Yahoo 7

Quite conclusive cause and effect described there,
War Crime.

 

[Lipush]

Jews building houses is now a "war crime".

50 years from now, they'd say that about us breathing, I bet.

 

[Indeependent]

The thead title has no validity.
Much like your posting contents.

 

[Beelzebub]

Jews building houses is now a "war crime".

50 years from now, they'd say that about us breathing, I bet.

How do you mistake illegal and immoral annexation of land for that?
Sometimes Lipush, I think you are just not trying.

 

[Daniyel]

It is only 'opinion not even close to be a direct hit-as your misleading title claims- but since the mysterious 'many' do care I would also assume they wouldn't mind some Israelis would be able to afford an apartment don't you think?

 

[Beelzebub]

It is only 'opinion not even close to be a direct hit-as your misleading title claims- but since the mysterious 'many' do care I would also assume they wouldn't mind some Israelis would be able to afford an apartment don't you think?

No problem with that.

Unless it is made more affordable by stealing the land it is built on. Or forcing a sale. Or coercion. Or having communications & utilities on stolen land. And brutalising the neighbours because they are not Jewish.

No. No problem at all.

 

[RoccoR]

Beelzebub, et al,

I', a bit confused here. On the one hand, you mention "collective punishment" and on the other, you mention "nationalization of settlements."

What exactly are you registering a complaint over?

We should be grateful to the Netanyahu government for its straightforwardness. It determined this week that the settlements are a punishment – from now on, it’s official.

We should also ask the same government to order the cessation of all investigations, real and fabricated, of “price tag” attacks, because then the nationalization of roughly 4,000 dunams of land belonging to five Palestinian villages, in response to the murder of the three teenagers, is a price tag that is much heavier (and a greater crime) than all the defamatory graffiti, burned mosques and slashed tires. It is also a clear case of collective punishment, of the sort that is considered a war crime under international law.

''' ... '''

This could be a sticky one.
All that Israel has left to argue is 'Should collective punishment BE a war crime?"

(COMMENT)

First off - "collective punishment" (if you understand that meaning) is a "War Crime" under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is also a violation of Rule 103 of the Customary International Humanitarian Law and Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Code. Having said that, nothing you've cited falls within the meaning of "collective punishment."

I think you are really trying to apply Article 8(2e) [War Crimes] of the RS/ICC:

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;
​

Having said that, even if Israel was a signatory, I don't think it would apply.

References:

• Oslo I Accord: A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993
• Oslo II Accord: A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

Both set of Accords are binding and both Accords have a stipulated manner in which "disputes" are resolved." Although the Oslo Accords are "interim Agreements" --- they are still in play.

• Oslo I --- Article XV --- RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

• Oslo II --- ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:​

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

You will note that both sets of Accords make a mutually agreed upon stipulation.

• In Oslo I --- Section B. SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS AND AGREEMENTS

Article IV
It is understood that:

1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

2. The Council's jurisdiction will apply with regard to the agreed powers, responsibilities, spheres and authorities transferred to it.​

• In Oslo II --- CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS

ARTICLE XXI

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

We agree that there is an ongoing dispute concerning the Settlements, especially the recently announced new development of 4000 dunams in Area "C" --- what we don't know is if this technically violates any arrangement already outlined in the Oslo Accords.

Finally, by prearranged agreement, both Parties (the Israelis and Palestinians) have stipulated a means of resolving the disputes for which the Palestinians have not engaged. It is not a "War Crime" if it is already a matter of legal agreement. And we don't know if it is a violation of that agreement until such time that the established dispute procedures are initiated.

The Settlements are issues that will be negotiated in the "permanent status negotiations" as outlined in Article V of Oslo I and Article XXXI(5) of Oslo II.

Article V

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.​

ARTICLE XXXI

Final Clauses

5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

The tools for a settlement of the disputes have been in place for a long time.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Beelzebub]

Good post Rocco.

And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.

"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.

The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.

I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

 

[montelatici]

Beelzebub, et al,

I', a bit confused here. On the one hand, you mention "collective punishment" and on the other, you mention "nationalization of settlements."

What exactly are you registering a complaint over?

We should be grateful to the Netanyahu government for its straightforwardness. It determined this week that the settlements are a punishment – from now on, it’s official.

We should also ask the same government to order the cessation of all investigations, real and fabricated, of “price tag” attacks, because then the nationalization of roughly 4,000 dunams of land belonging to five Palestinian villages, in response to the murder of the three teenagers, is a price tag that is much heavier (and a greater crime) than all the defamatory graffiti, burned mosques and slashed tires. It is also a clear case of collective punishment, of the sort that is considered a war crime under international law.

''' ... '''

This could be a sticky one.
All that Israel has left to argue is 'Should collective punishment BE a war crime?"

(COMMENT)

First off - "collective punishment" (if you understand that meaning) is a "War Crime" under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is also a violation of Rule 103 of the Customary International Humanitarian Law and Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Code. Having said that, nothing you've cited falls within the meaning of "collective punishment."

I think you are really trying to apply Article 8(2e) [War Crimes] of the RS/ICC:

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;
​

Having said that, even if Israel was a signatory, I don't think it would apply.

References:

• Oslo I Accord: A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993
• Oslo II Accord: A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

Both set of Accords are binding and both Accords have a stipulated manner in which "disputes" are resolved." Although the Oslo Accords are "interim Agreements" --- they are still in play.

• Oslo I --- Article XV --- RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

• Oslo II --- ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:​

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

You will note that both sets of Accords make a mutually agreed upon stipulation.

• In Oslo I --- Section B. SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS AND AGREEMENTS

Article IV
It is understood that:

1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

2. The Council's jurisdiction will apply with regard to the agreed powers, responsibilities, spheres and authorities transferred to it.​

• In Oslo II --- CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS

ARTICLE XXI

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

We agree that there is an ongoing dispute concerning the Settlements, especially the recently announced new development of 4000 dunams in Area "C" --- what we don't know is if this technically violates any arrangement already outlined in the Oslo Accords.

Finally, by prearranged agreement, both Parties (the Israelis and Palestinians) have stipulated a means of resolving the disputes for which the Palestinians have not engaged. It is not a "War Crime" if it is already a matter of legal agreement. And we don't know if it is a violation of that agreement until such time that the established dispute procedures are initiated.

The Settlements are issues that will be negotiated in the "permanent status negotiations" as outlined in Article V of Oslo I and Article XXXI(5) of Oslo II.

Article V

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.​

ARTICLE XXXI

Final Clauses

5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

The tools for a settlement of the disputes have been in place for a long time.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under international law, Israel (or any state) is required to minimize harm to civilians in the pursuit of military objectives, and such harm must be proportionate to the importance of the objective and the effectiveness of the action. Leveling entire urban neighborhoods far from the battle front in an attempt to cripple Hamas is disproportionate. Targeting convoys of civilian vehicles as they flee Israel's bombardments in terror, when Israel knows that most or all of them are families with small children who have nowhere else to go and no other way to escape, even if the intention was to try to kill whatever combatants might have been among them, was grossly disproportionate.

A specific civilian who willingly assists in military operations is a legitimate military target. Their wives and children are not. Others living in their building are not. Their neighbors are not. Those forced to cooperate are not. All these are civilians who must be considered in the test of proportionality.

This is a best-case scenario for Israel. If, as is much more likely, Israel's intent was to harm the civilian population in order to increase political pressure on the government and/or Hamas in order to extract political gains or better terms for an eventual ceasefire, this is collective punishment and a war crime.

If Israel had attacked the logistical and combatant centers of Hamas as well as the roads surrounding the battle front (after allowing enough time for civilians to flee) in order to slow the replenishment of supplies to Hamas fighters, they might have a case for legitimate military necessity.

Instead, in addition to all this, Israel bombed nearly nearly every building, including hospitals in Gaza killing scores in the process, often without a clear military objective.

Israel's targeting of the power plant is far beyond any proportionality.

If Israel is destroyed Gaza's infrastructure and economy in order to punish the people for electing Hamas or to pressure them to stop Hamas activities (which they don't have the power to do), this is collective punishment and a war crime.

Unfortunately, war crimes are difficult to prove and even more difficult to prosecute. But there are precedents. Many Israeli generals and politicians are already afraid to travel to Europe, because individual countries have filed war crimes complaints against them for past violations of both Palestinian and Lebanese human rights. One top Israeli General was almost nabbed in London a few years ago but was tipped off and escaped. His crimes included dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza to assassinate a Hamas commander in 2003, and in the process killing 14 sleeping bystanders, more than half of them children, and injuring 150 more.

Eventually, some of these Israeli war criminals will be caught and put on trial. It will be fun hearing all of the huffing and puffing from the U.S. and Israel when that happens.

 

[Beelzebub]

I would like to see every surviving POTUS in the dock with them.
And every present and past member of Congress in chains, behind.

While Tony Blair's steely gaze washes over them, from on high. From a spike.

 

[Phoenall]

As to "not even close" I would say it's a direct hit.

Jerusalem (AFP) - Israel announced Sunday it will expropriate 400 hectares (988 acres) of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, angering the Palestinians and alarming Israeli peace campaigners.

The move to seize the land, in the Bethlehem area in the south of the territory, is the biggest of its kind in three decades, Peace Now said.

"On the instructions of the political echelon... 4,000 dunams at Gevaot (settlement) is declared as state land," said the army department charged with administering civil affairs in occupied territory, laying down a 45-day period for any appeal.

It said the move stemmed from political decisions taken after the June killing of three Israeli teenagers snatched from a roadside in the same area, known to Israelis as the Gush Etzion settlement bloc.

Israel has named three Palestinians from the southern West Bank city of Hebron as being behind the murders.

The Etzion settlements council welcomed Sunday's announcement and said it was the prelude to the expansion of the current Gevaot settlement.

It "paves the way for the new city of Gevaot", it said in a statement.

"The goal of the murderers of those three youths was to sow fear among us, to disrupt our daily lives and to call into doubt our right to the land," it said. "Our response is to strengthen settlement."

Israel plans to expropriate 400 hectares of West Bank army says - Yahoo 7

Quite conclusive cause and effect described there,
War Crime.

Not if the land was owned by the Jews prior to 1949 when Jordan took it by force and ethnically cleansed the land of the Jews. Why don't you take it up with the UN who now hold the land registry for Palestine.
And since when have the arab muslim Palestinians owned the land of Palestine, they gave it up remember in 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

Jews building houses is now a "war crime".

50 years from now, they'd say that about us breathing, I bet.

How do you mistake illegal and immoral annexation of land for that?
Sometimes Lipush, I think you are just not trying.

First you need to prove conclusively that the it is illegal and immoral annexation of the land, and not legal and moral right of return.

 

[Daniyel]

I Just lost all interest talking about this issue, now that its prove Hamas and Fatah (Islamic Terrorists, Yes they are so get over it suckers) are not in having a state of their own and finally stop pulling our tail.. nah ..they won't last much longer anyway specially with the loss of support in the outside world.

 

[toastman]

Beelzebub, et al,

I', a bit confused here. On the one hand, you mention "collective punishment" and on the other, you mention "nationalization of settlements."

What exactly are you registering a complaint over?

We should be grateful to the Netanyahu government for its straightforwardness. It determined this week that the settlements are a punishment – from now on, it’s official.

We should also ask the same government to order the cessation of all investigations, real and fabricated, of “price tag” attacks, because then the nationalization of roughly 4,000 dunams of land belonging to five Palestinian villages, in response to the murder of the three teenagers, is a price tag that is much heavier (and a greater crime) than all the defamatory graffiti, burned mosques and slashed tires. It is also a clear case of collective punishment, of the sort that is considered a war crime under international law.

''' ... '''

This could be a sticky one.
All that Israel has left to argue is 'Should collective punishment BE a war crime?"

(COMMENT)

First off - "collective punishment" (if you understand that meaning) is a "War Crime" under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is also a violation of Rule 103 of the Customary International Humanitarian Law and Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Code. Having said that, nothing you've cited falls within the meaning of "collective punishment."

I think you are really trying to apply Article 8(2e) [War Crimes] of the RS/ICC:

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;
​

Having said that, even if Israel was a signatory, I don't think it would apply.

References:

• Oslo I Accord: A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993
• Oslo II Accord: A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

Both set of Accords are binding and both Accords have a stipulated manner in which "disputes" are resolved." Although the Oslo Accords are "interim Agreements" --- they are still in play.

• Oslo I --- Article XV --- RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

• Oslo II --- ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:​

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

You will note that both sets of Accords make a mutually agreed upon stipulation.

• In Oslo I --- Section B. SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS AND AGREEMENTS

Article IV
It is understood that:

1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

2. The Council's jurisdiction will apply with regard to the agreed powers, responsibilities, spheres and authorities transferred to it.​

• In Oslo II --- CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS

ARTICLE XXI

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

We agree that there is an ongoing dispute concerning the Settlements, especially the recently announced new development of 4000 dunams in Area "C" --- what we don't know is if this technically violates any arrangement already outlined in the Oslo Accords.

Finally, by prearranged agreement, both Parties (the Israelis and Palestinians) have stipulated a means of resolving the disputes for which the Palestinians have not engaged. It is not a "War Crime" if it is already a matter of legal agreement. And we don't know if it is a violation of that agreement until such time that the established dispute procedures are initiated.

The Settlements are issues that will be negotiated in the "permanent status negotiations" as outlined in Article V of Oslo I and Article XXXI(5) of Oslo II.

Article V

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.​

ARTICLE XXXI

Final Clauses

5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

The tools for a settlement of the disputes have been in place for a long time.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under international law, Israel (or any state) is required to minimize harm to civilians in the pursuit of military objectives, and such harm must be proportionate to the importance of the objective and the effectiveness of the action. Leveling entire urban neighborhoods far from the battle front in an attempt to cripple Hamas is disproportionate. Targeting convoys of civilian vehicles as they flee Israel's bombardments in terror, when Israel knows that most or all of them are families with small children who have nowhere else to go and no other way to escape, even if the intention was to try to kill whatever combatants might have been among them, was grossly disproportionate.

A specific civilian who willingly assists in military operations is a legitimate military target. Their wives and children are not. Others living in their building are not. Their neighbors are not. Those forced to cooperate are not. All these are civilians who must be considered in the test of proportionality.

This is a best-case scenario for Israel. If, as is much more likely, Israel's intent was to harm the civilian population in order to increase political pressure on the government and/or Hamas in order to extract political gains or better terms for an eventual ceasefire, this is collective punishment and a war crime.

If Israel had attacked the logistical and combatant centers of Hamas as well as the roads surrounding the battle front (after allowing enough time for civilians to flee) in order to slow the replenishment of supplies to Hamas fighters, they might have a case for legitimate military necessity.

Instead, in addition to all this, Israel bombed nearly nearly every building, including hospitals in Gaza killing scores in the process, often without a clear military objective.

Israel's targeting of the power plant is far beyond any proportionality.

If Israel is destroyed Gaza's infrastructure and economy in order to punish the people for electing Hamas or to pressure them to stop Hamas activities (which they don't have the power to do), this is collective punishment and a war crime.

Unfortunately, war crimes are difficult to prove and even more difficult to prosecute. But there are precedents. Many Israeli generals and politicians are already afraid to travel to Europe, because individual countries have filed war crimes complaints against them for past violations of both Palestinian and Lebanese human rights. One top Israeli General was almost nabbed in London a few years ago but was tipped off and escaped. His crimes included dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza to assassinate a Hamas commander in 2003, and in the process killing 14 sleeping bystanders, more than half of them children, and injuring 150 more.

Eventually, some of these Israeli war criminals will be caught and put on trial. It will be fun hearing all of the huffing and puffing from the U.S. and Israel when that happens.

What has Hamas down in its history of attacks against Israel, to avoid civilian casualties?

 

[Phoenall]

Beelzebub, et al,

I', a bit confused here. On the one hand, you mention "collective punishment" and on the other, you mention "nationalization of settlements."

What exactly are you registering a complaint over?

We should be grateful to the Netanyahu government for its straightforwardness. It determined this week that the settlements are a punishment – from now on, it’s official.

We should also ask the same government to order the cessation of all investigations, real and fabricated, of “price tag” attacks, because then the nationalization of roughly 4,000 dunams of land belonging to five Palestinian villages, in response to the murder of the three teenagers, is a price tag that is much heavier (and a greater crime) than all the defamatory graffiti, burned mosques and slashed tires. It is also a clear case of collective punishment, of the sort that is considered a war crime under international law.

''' ... '''

This could be a sticky one.
All that Israel has left to argue is 'Should collective punishment BE a war crime?"

(COMMENT)

First off - "collective punishment" (if you understand that meaning) is a "War Crime" under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is also a violation of Rule 103 of the Customary International Humanitarian Law and Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Code. Having said that, nothing you've cited falls within the meaning of "collective punishment."

I think you are really trying to apply Article 8(2e) [War Crimes] of the RS/ICC:

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;
​

Having said that, even if Israel was a signatory, I don't think it would apply.

References:

• Oslo I Accord: A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993
• Oslo II Accord: A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

Both set of Accords are binding and both Accords have a stipulated manner in which "disputes" are resolved." Although the Oslo Accords are "interim Agreements" --- they are still in play.

• Oslo I --- Article XV --- RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

• Oslo II --- ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:​

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

You will note that both sets of Accords make a mutually agreed upon stipulation.

• In Oslo I --- Section B. SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS AND AGREEMENTS

Article IV
It is understood that:

1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

2. The Council's jurisdiction will apply with regard to the agreed powers, responsibilities, spheres and authorities transferred to it.​

• In Oslo II --- CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS

ARTICLE XXI

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

We agree that there is an ongoing dispute concerning the Settlements, especially the recently announced new development of 4000 dunams in Area "C" --- what we don't know is if this technically violates any arrangement already outlined in the Oslo Accords.

Finally, by prearranged agreement, both Parties (the Israelis and Palestinians) have stipulated a means of resolving the disputes for which the Palestinians have not engaged. It is not a "War Crime" if it is already a matter of legal agreement. And we don't know if it is a violation of that agreement until such time that the established dispute procedures are initiated.

The Settlements are issues that will be negotiated in the "permanent status negotiations" as outlined in Article V of Oslo I and Article XXXI(5) of Oslo II.

Article V

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.​

ARTICLE XXXI

Final Clauses

5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

The tools for a settlement of the disputes have been in place for a long time.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under international law, Israel (or any state) is required to minimize harm to civilians in the pursuit of military objectives, and such harm must be proportionate to the importance of the objective and the effectiveness of the action. Leveling entire urban neighborhoods far from the battle front in an attempt to cripple Hamas is disproportionate. Targeting convoys of civilian vehicles as they flee Israel's bombardments in terror, when Israel knows that most or all of them are families with small children who have nowhere else to go and no other way to escape, even if the intention was to try to kill whatever combatants might have been among them, was grossly disproportionate.

A specific civilian who willingly assists in military operations is a legitimate military target. Their wives and children are not. Others living in their building are not. Their neighbors are not. Those forced to cooperate are not. All these are civilians who must be considered in the test of proportionality.

This is a best-case scenario for Israel. If, as is much more likely, Israel's intent was to harm the civilian population in order to increase political pressure on the government and/or Hamas in order to extract political gains or better terms for an eventual ceasefire, this is collective punishment and a war crime.

If Israel had attacked the logistical and combatant centers of Hamas as well as the roads surrounding the battle front (after allowing enough time for civilians to flee) in order to slow the replenishment of supplies to Hamas fighters, they might have a case for legitimate military necessity.

Instead, in addition to all this, Israel bombed nearly nearly every building, including hospitals in Gaza killing scores in the process, often without a clear military objective.

Israel's targeting of the power plant is far beyond any proportionality.

If Israel is destroyed Gaza's infrastructure and economy in order to punish the people for electing Hamas or to pressure them to stop Hamas activities (which they don't have the power to do), this is collective punishment and a war crime.

Unfortunately, war crimes are difficult to prove and even more difficult to prosecute. But there are precedents. Many Israeli generals and politicians are already afraid to travel to Europe, because individual countries have filed war crimes complaints against them for past violations of both Palestinian and Lebanese human rights. One top Israeli General was almost nabbed in London a few years ago but was tipped off and escaped. His crimes included dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza to assassinate a Hamas commander in 2003, and in the process killing 14 sleeping bystanders, more than half of them children, and injuring 150 more.

Eventually, some of these Israeli war criminals will be caught and put on trial. It will be fun hearing all of the huffing and puffing from the U.S. and Israel when that happens.

What are you rattling your gums at now, it was the battle front by the Palestinians own making when they started to fire rockets from there. Then used the area as a staging post for ILLEGAL MILITARY tunnels to place H.E. under schools and kindergartens

 

[Penelope]

Jews building houses is now a "war crime".

50 years from now, they'd say that about us breathing, I bet.

on land that did not belong to them.

 

[montelatici]

Beelzebub, et al,

I', a bit confused here. On the one hand, you mention "collective punishment" and on the other, you mention "nationalization of settlements."

What exactly are you registering a complaint over?

We should be grateful to the Netanyahu government for its straightforwardness. It determined this week that the settlements are a punishment – from now on, it’s official.

We should also ask the same government to order the cessation of all investigations, real and fabricated, of “price tag” attacks, because then the nationalization of roughly 4,000 dunams of land belonging to five Palestinian villages, in response to the murder of the three teenagers, is a price tag that is much heavier (and a greater crime) than all the defamatory graffiti, burned mosques and slashed tires. It is also a clear case of collective punishment, of the sort that is considered a war crime under international law.

''' ... '''

This could be a sticky one.
All that Israel has left to argue is 'Should collective punishment BE a war crime?"

(COMMENT)

First off - "collective punishment" (if you understand that meaning) is a "War Crime" under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is also a violation of Rule 103 of the Customary International Humanitarian Law and Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Code. Having said that, nothing you've cited falls within the meaning of "collective punishment."

I think you are really trying to apply Article 8(2e) [War Crimes] of the RS/ICC:

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;
​

Having said that, even if Israel was a signatory, I don't think it would apply.

References:

• Oslo I Accord: A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993
• Oslo II Accord: A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

Both set of Accords are binding and both Accords have a stipulated manner in which "disputes" are resolved." Although the Oslo Accords are "interim Agreements" --- they are still in play.

• Oslo I --- Article XV --- RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

• Oslo II --- ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:​

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

You will note that both sets of Accords make a mutually agreed upon stipulation.

• In Oslo I --- Section B. SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS AND AGREEMENTS

Article IV
It is understood that:

1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

2. The Council's jurisdiction will apply with regard to the agreed powers, responsibilities, spheres and authorities transferred to it.​

• In Oslo II --- CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS

ARTICLE XXI

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

We agree that there is an ongoing dispute concerning the Settlements, especially the recently announced new development of 4000 dunams in Area "C" --- what we don't know is if this technically violates any arrangement already outlined in the Oslo Accords.

Finally, by prearranged agreement, both Parties (the Israelis and Palestinians) have stipulated a means of resolving the disputes for which the Palestinians have not engaged. It is not a "War Crime" if it is already a matter of legal agreement. And we don't know if it is a violation of that agreement until such time that the established dispute procedures are initiated.

The Settlements are issues that will be negotiated in the "permanent status negotiations" as outlined in Article V of Oslo I and Article XXXI(5) of Oslo II.

Article V

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.​

ARTICLE XXXI

Final Clauses

5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

The tools for a settlement of the disputes have been in place for a long time.

Most Respectfully,
R

Under international law, Israel (or any state) is required to minimize harm to civilians in the pursuit of military objectives, and such harm must be proportionate to the importance of the objective and the effectiveness of the action. Leveling entire urban neighborhoods far from the battle front in an attempt to cripple Hamas is disproportionate. Targeting convoys of civilian vehicles as they flee Israel's bombardments in terror, when Israel knows that most or all of them are families with small children who have nowhere else to go and no other way to escape, even if the intention was to try to kill whatever combatants might have been among them, was grossly disproportionate.

A specific civilian who willingly assists in military operations is a legitimate military target. Their wives and children are not. Others living in their building are not. Their neighbors are not. Those forced to cooperate are not. All these are civilians who must be considered in the test of proportionality.

This is a best-case scenario for Israel. If, as is much more likely, Israel's intent was to harm the civilian population in order to increase political pressure on the government and/or Hamas in order to extract political gains or better terms for an eventual ceasefire, this is collective punishment and a war crime.

If Israel had attacked the logistical and combatant centers of Hamas as well as the roads surrounding the battle front (after allowing enough time for civilians to flee) in order to slow the replenishment of supplies to Hamas fighters, they might have a case for legitimate military necessity.

Instead, in addition to all this, Israel bombed nearly nearly every building, including hospitals in Gaza killing scores in the process, often without a clear military objective.

Israel's targeting of the power plant is far beyond any proportionality.

If Israel is destroyed Gaza's infrastructure and economy in order to punish the people for electing Hamas or to pressure them to stop Hamas activities (which they don't have the power to do), this is collective punishment and a war crime.

Unfortunately, war crimes are difficult to prove and even more difficult to prosecute. But there are precedents. Many Israeli generals and politicians are already afraid to travel to Europe, because individual countries have filed war crimes complaints against them for past violations of both Palestinian and Lebanese human rights. One top Israeli General was almost nabbed in London a few years ago but was tipped off and escaped. His crimes included dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza to assassinate a Hamas commander in 2003, and in the process killing 14 sleeping bystanders, more than half of them children, and injuring 150 more.

Eventually, some of these Israeli war criminals will be caught and put on trial. It will be fun hearing all of the huffing and puffing from the U.S. and Israel when that happens.

What are you rattling your gums at now, it was the battle front by the Palestinians own making when they started to fire rockets from there. Then used the area as a staging post for ILLEGAL MILITARY tunnels to place H.E. under schools and kindergartens

Stop your lip flapping. It is the Israeli blockade that is the act of war against the inhabitants of Gaza. They have every right to resist the blockade and attempt a breakout and to attack the blockading oppressor through tunnels or otherwise. You have a completely cockeyed view of the facts on the ground. It is the Jewish Israelis that have more than a million people penned up in Gaza. That's a war crime.