Addressing the Occupation Myth

[Humanity]

As usual you are making another baseless claim. Have you really not a single reference that supports your ideology

The occupation myth was also started in about 1967 by Arafat. And again had about as little basis in reality as the existence of any people called palestinians

Funny you are...

Two links provided and you still didn't read them? tut tut

Go stand in the corner with your dunce's hat and... Oh, sorry, you already are!

Do you want me to post the links again or are the grown up words too much for you?

 

[Humanity]

The ICC just as most UN organizations really only delivers opinions and as such none of their opinions carry much weight.

So again the myth never really carried much weight other than in the Arab block controlled UN

Hahaha...

Now I can hear you trembling with fear....

"never really carried much weight"?

Want to name ONE country, other than Israel, who doesn't believe that Israel is occupying territory?

 

[Boston1]

Again no links ? My bet you don't have any that actually support your nonsense.

Although even if you can, you're going to be sadly disappointed once again. Specific language is a ***** and since you don't really know what your talking about on this one you aren't aware of the varying meanings that play such an important role in the language of law. Hell I'm no expert at it either but at least I look up the terms before I assume anything. ;--)

You might also want to brush up on just what the ICC is designed to do before you make any more blanket statements against Israel.

Quote

The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court.

End Quote

Jurisdiction over territories is limited to security council recommendations

Quote

Territorial jurisdiction[edit]

The territorial jurisdiction of the Court includes the territory, registered vessels, and registered aircraft of states which have either (1) become party to the Rome Statute or (2) accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a declaration with the Court.[69]

In situations that are referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council, the territorial jurisdiction is defined by the Security Council, which may be more expansive than the Court's normal territorial jurisdiction.[70] For example, if the Security Council refers a situation that took place in the territory of a state that has both not become party to the Rome Statute and not lodged a declaration with the Court, the Court will still be able to prosecute crimes that occurred within that state.

End Quote

 

[Humanity]

Again no links ? My bet you don't have any that actually support your nonsense.

Although even if you can, you're going to be sadly disappointed once again. Specific language is a ***** and since you don't really know what your talking about on this one you aren't aware of the varying meanings that play such an important role in the language of law. Hell I'm no expert at it either but at least I look up the terms before I assume anything. ;--)

You might also want to brush up on just what the ICC is designed to do before you make any more blanket statements against Israel.

Quote

The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court.

End Quote

The TWO links post earlier are below...

If you simply decide not to read them that's your decision to remain a dumbass troll...

Just STOP trolling this board with your fucked up zionut belligerence!

HCJ 316/03
ICRC service

 

[Boston1]

Good boy, it took you a while but you are learning. Slowly, but you are learning.

now since I'm sure you have absolutely no background in middle east studies lets just go over some of the finer points of international law that have bearing on Jurisdictional issues and the ICC

Lets start with

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwjm2-Xg6c_KAhXjkYMKHeZeBIAQFgg-MAU&url=http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/5/979.full.pdf?amp;keytype=ref&usg=AFQjCNEwQoq9vRsFOwfie229ETRl2hqcVg&sig2=6Klk1WrXwF_9FWExogpA-w

Oxford Journal of Law
Quote

This article explores a significant jurisdictional hurdle for such a case. (To focus on jurisdictional issues, the article assumes for the sake of argument the validity of the merits of legal claims against the settlements.) The ICC can only consider situations ‘on the territory’ of Palestine. Yet the scope of that territory remains undefined. The norm against settlements arises in situations of occupation. However, in the majority view an ‘occupation’ can arise even in an area that is not the territory of any state. In this respect, ICC jurisdiction is narrower than the corresponding Geneva Convention norm, as it only extends to sovereign state territory.

End Quote

Turns out the ICC doesn't have jurisdictional authority outside of sovereign territories. So until Israel annexes the disputed territories the ICC is helpless.

 

[Humanity]

Good boy, it took you a while but you are learning. Slowly, but you are learning. now since I'm sure you have absolutely no background in middle east studies lets just go over some of the finer points of international law that have bearing on Jurisdictional issues and the ICC

Lets start with

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwjm2-Xg6c_KAhXjkYMKHeZeBIAQFgg-MAU&url=http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/5/979.full.pdf?amp;keytype=ref&usg=AFQjCNEwQoq9vRsFOwfie229ETRl2hqcVg&sig2=6Klk1WrXwF_9FWExogpA-w

Oxford Journal of Law
Quote

This article explores a significant jurisdictional hurdle for such a case. (To focus on jurisdictional issues, the article assumes for the sake of argument the validity of the merits of legal claims against the settlements.) The ICC can only consider situations ‘on the territory’ of Palestine. Yet the scope of that territory remains undefined. The norm against settlements arises in situations of occupation. However, in the majority view an ‘occupation’ can arise even in an area that is not the territory of any state. In this respect, ICC jurisdiction is narrower than the corresponding Geneva Convention norm, as it only extends to sovereign state territory.

End Quote

Turns out the ICC doesn't have jurisdictional authority outside of sovereign territories. So until Israel annexes the disputed territories the ICC is helpless.

Wow, you managed to see the links, finally, I was beginning to wonder if yo mamma was restricting yo internet....

Not bad considering the links were posted several posts ago but you still decide to carry on making yourself look like a complete ****!

But oh look, what happens...

You choose to ignore the fact that you just been made to look like an idiot and decide to deflect onto a different subject!

I'm done with you troll...

You are no match for ANYONE here!

Oh and for your information, if you do a little search on Google for Oxford University and Middle East you will find me... You will also find my credentials on this forum... Posted some time ago but still around somewhere... Will I post them again for you troll? NOPE![/QUOTE]

 

[Boston1]

I hear whine, did anyone else hear a whining sound ?

Lets look at the jurisdictional issues again and see just how ineffective the ICC is in regards to the myth of occupation.

From
Oxford Journal of law

Quote

Thus even if Israel is an occupying power throughout the West Bank for the purposes of substantive humanitarian law, this does not establish that settlement activity occurs ‘on the territory’ of Palestine. Moreover, both the General Assembly resolution and the International Court of Justice’s Wall Advisory opinion make clear that the borders of Palestine remain undefined. The ICC lacks the power to determine boundaries of states, and certainly of non-member states. Given that Israel is a non-member state, determining the borders of Palestine, even for jurisdictional purposes, would violate the Monetary Gold principle, as it would also determine Israel’s borders.

End Quote

So again the ICC simply doesn't have jurisdiction

So now that you've been brave enough to provide links, care to actually identify what section and quote those links apply to ?????? cause from what I can see that first link deals with a fence, not the occupation myth.

 

[RoccoR]

Humanity, et al,

Now that is interesting!

Even if the bias ICC does determine that Israel is occupying the territories is it an illegal occupation ? One must remember that the situation developed from the Arab declaration of war in 1948 and as such Israel is the wronged party to the aggressive Arab acts of war.

It's already illegal occupation...

Who gives a ducks arse what the "bias ICC" (hahaha) thinks....

It's already been declared "Belligerent Occupation" by Israel's own courts!

(COMMENT)

What in the world makes you think that a Belligerent Occupation is illegal.

A belligerent occupation is non-consensual under Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 6). In fact, actually having a ruling that it is belligerent occupation works in Israel's favor. You see normally, an occupation world terminate one year after the end of hostilities. But each time the Palestinian launch a rocket, make an infiltration, conduct an ambush, attempt to break the blockade, or issue another threat to use force - call for an intifada, indorse jihadist activity, etc, etc, etc --- the clock starts over.

ARTICLE 6

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2 [ Link ].
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 [ Link ] to 12, 27 [ Link ] , 29 [ Link ] to 34, 47 [ Link ] , 49 [ Link ] , 51 [ Link ] , 52 [ Link ] , 53 [ Link ] , 59 [ Link ] , 61 [ Link ] to 77, 143 [ Link ] .
Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention.
​

Similarly, Article 2, GCIV, these rules apply even if the Palestinians don't recognize it as a declared war (Jihad counts) or of any other form of armed conflict (IAC/NIAC). It only has to to have one part recognize it. Since the Palestinians did not make a peace treaty with the Israeli, that is the third prima facie case for invoking the rule.

Now, there is a strong argument to be make that "Protected Persons," currently incarcerated by Israeli Authorities, also be eligible for release or repatriation after such dates (the one-year after the end of hostilities).

I don't think anyone has to worry about that. The Palestinians were still launching attack during the 2005 Disengagement. They couldn't even wait long enough to let there be a peaceful movement.

I don't know whatever gave you that idea that a Belligerent and illegal mean the same thing.

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  

 

[Boston1]

Humanity, et al,

Now that is interesting!

Even if the bias ICC does determine that Israel is occupying the territories is it an illegal occupation ? One must remember that the situation developed from the Arab declaration of war in 1948 and as such Israel is the wronged party to the aggressive Arab acts of war.

It's already illegal occupation...

Who gives a ducks arse what the "bias ICC" (hahaha) thinks....

It's already been declared "Belligerent Occupation" by Israel's own courts!

(COMMENT)

What in the world makes you think that a Belligerent Occupation is illegal.

A belligerent occupation is non-consensual under Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 6). In fact, actually having a ruling that it is belligerent occupation works in Israel's favor. You see normally, an occupation world terminate one year after the end of hostilities. But each time the Palestinian launch a rocket, make an infiltration, conduct an ambush, attempt to break the blockade, or issue another threat to use force - call for an intifada, indorse jihadist activity, etc, etc, etc --- the clock starts over.

ARTICLE 6

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2 [ Link ].
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 [ Link ] to 12, 27 [ Link ] , 29 [ Link ] to 34, 47 [ Link ] , 49 [ Link ] , 51 [ Link ] , 52 [ Link ] , 53 [ Link ] , 59 [ Link ] , 61 [ Link ] to 77, 143 [ Link ] .
Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention.
​

Similarly, Article 2, GCIV, these rules apply even if the Palestinians don't recognize it as a declared war (Jihad counts) or of any other form of armed conflict (IAC/NIAC). It only has to to have one part recognize it. Since the Palestinians did not make a peace treaty with the Israeli, that is the third prima facie case for invoking the rule.

Now, there is a strong argument to be make that "Protected Persons," currently incarcerated by Israeli Authorities, also be eligible for release or repatriation after such dates (the one-year after the end of hostilities).

I don't think anyone has to worry about that. The Palestinians were still launching attack during the 2005 Disengagement. They couldn't even wait long enough to let there be a peaceful movement.

I don't know whatever gave you that idea that a Belligerent and illegal mean the same thing.

Most Respectfully,
R

I started a definitions thread but I don't think he paid any attention to it as it kind blows the revisionist argument out of the water. A beligerant is merely a participant in hostilities, it doesn't define an aggressor ( who's actions are illegal ) and a defender ( who's actions are legal ) All it defines is that the party participated in hostilities.

I can't help but notice when flag boy was asked for specifics he declared victory and bailed out. Odd, I would have thought if he felt he had a decisive point he would have stuck around. I guess once again the revisionist position simply doesn't' stand up to scrutiny

 

[Boston1]

You are a liar. You always have been, and always will be. That's what none of the rest of us care about anything you say.

The fact that I'm reading your off-topic taunt, is prima faci evidence that there is something wrong with this picture.

The fact that you respond with an off topic post is prima faci evidence that there is something wrong with YOU.

The simple fact is that there is no occupation and since our pro terrorists can't address that issue they clearly think that distractions and off topic posts are the way to go

 

[Billo_Really]

The problem is that Team Zionut are incapable of accepting simple fact....

The simple fact that the occupation is REAL...

The simple fact that only ONE country in the world who considers it NOT an occupation and thats the occupier...

The simple fact that even the Supreme Court of Israel considers the situation as "Belligerent occupation"... Links have been posted MANY times for this but it looks like you are incapable of even looking for them so, here, let me help you...

HCJ 316/03
ICRC service

So what are we left with?

Israel the Occupier....

It must be a sad, lonely place in your head... For that lonely brain cell that occupies it!

Now, run along.... There's a good little zionut!

I have a question...

...since the Israeli High Court considers it a "belligerent occupation", wouldn't that mean there are NO countries on the planet that believe the occupation doesn't exist, INCLUDING Israel?

 

[Elvis Obama]

The ICC just as most UN organizations really only delivers opinions and as such none of their opinions carry much weight.

So again the myth never really carried much weight other than in the Arab block controlled UN

Hahaha...

Now I can hear you trembling with fear....

"never really carried much weight"?

Want to name ONE country, other than Israel, who doesn't believe that Israel is occupying territory?

Yeah, in this regard the PR machine has been successful. I am curious, though. Why do you care? I mean, clearly you do, you have demonstrated that much. I'm not sure why this is your pet project, though. Peace, yeah, I could see that as a pet project, but the Palestinians?

 

[Boston1]

The problem is that Team Zionut are incapable of accepting simple fact....

The simple fact that the occupation is REAL...

The simple fact that only ONE country in the world who considers it NOT an occupation and thats the occupier...

The simple fact that even the Supreme Court of Israel considers the situation as "Belligerent occupation"... Links have been posted MANY times for this but it looks like you are incapable of even looking for them so, here, let me help you...

HCJ 316/03
ICRC service

So what are we left with?

Israel the Occupier....

It must be a sad, lonely place in your head... For that lonely brain cell that occupies it!

Now, run along.... There's a good little zionut!

I have a question...

...since the Israeli High Court considers it a "belligerent occupation", wouldn't that mean there are NO countries on the planet that believe the occupation doesn't exist, INCLUDING Israel?

Its a perfect example of your failure to understand the language being used

Belligerent in the legal context means a participant in hostilities. It does not denote which is the aggressor ( an illegal belligerent ) VS which is the defender ( a legal belligerent )

Also the term occupation does not denote legal or illegal. The palestinians are also occupying this area.

So once again we have the false narrative of the revisionists being exposed for what it is.

 

[montelatici]

"The Israeli occupation of the OPT violates the three basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation and is, therefore, intrinsically illegal. This section discusses the basic principles informing this normative regime and then applies them to the Israeli occupation. Sub-section (1), The Evolving Concept of Occupation, discusses the major cornerstones in the development of this normative regime and the extent of their applicability to the occupation at hand. Subsection (2), Occupation Suspends Sovereignty, focuses on the first basic tenet of this regime, that is, that occupation does not confer title. Sub-section (3), Trust Matters, discusses the second basic principle of the normative regime of occupation, according to which an occupation regime is a form of trust under which the occupant, without forsaking its own security interests, is nevertheless obligated to act as a trustee on behalf of the occupied population. Sub-section (4), Right on Time, is concerned with the last basic principle of the normative regime of occupation, which decrees that an occupation must be temporary, as distinct from indefinite. In each sub-section, the normative conclusions generated by the discussion are then applied to the Israeli occupation of the OPT."

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil

 

[Boston1]

"The Israeli occupation of the OPT violates the three basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation and is, therefore, intrinsically illegal. This section discusses the basic principles informing this normative regime and then applies them to the Israeli occupation. Sub-section (1), The Evolving Concept of Occupation, discusses the major cornerstones in the development of this normative regime and the extent of their applicability to the occupation at hand. Subsection (2), Occupation Suspends Sovereignty, focuses on the first basic tenet of this regime, that is, that occupation does not confer title. Sub-section (3), Trust Matters, discusses the second basic principle of the normative regime of occupation, according to which an occupation regime is a form of trust under which the occupant, without forsaking its own security interests, is nevertheless obligated to act as a trustee on behalf of the occupied population. Sub-section (4), Right on Time, is concerned with the last basic principle of the normative regime of occupation, which decrees that an occupation must be temporary, as distinct from indefinite. In each sub-section, the normative conclusions generated by the discussion are then applied to the Israeli occupation of the OPT."

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil

I love it. Your link is written by some pretty shady characters. Lets review.

See

B´Tselem - NGO Monitor
b_tselem
B'Tselem faces serious criticism for its misrepresentations of international law, inaccurate research, and skewed statistics ... See here for B'Tselem funding chart .

Also see

In particular, the addition of Ms. Asli Bali, and Aeyal Gross, who is known as an opponent of Israeli policies, will reinforce the political agenda of MENA heads Sara Leah Whitson and Joe Stork, as documented in NGO Monitor’s detailed analysis, “Experts or Ideologues?”.

and finally we have Keren Michaeli a prominent anti Israeli writer.

Why am I not surprised.

But the fact remains you have not shown that there is an occupation ergo you cannot apply principals of an occupation to the situation.

 

[montelatici]

Are the judges of the Israeli Supreme Court "shady" too? You clowns are a hoot.

"The Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice


[February 29, 2004; March 11, 2004; March 17, 2004; March 31, 2004; April 16, 2004; April 21, 2004; May 2, 2004 ]


Before President A. Barak, Vice-President E. Mazza, and Justice M. Cheshin​

1.Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation. "


HCJ 316/03

 

[Boston1]

Ahahhahahahahahha

I'm sorry but you really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

The petition hasn't anything to do with deciding if their is an occupation. The petition to the court and its decision is concerning a fence.

Its got nothing to do with deciding if there is an illegal occupation.

The term belligerent merely designated Israel as one party to a conflict. It does not denote a legal status. Clearly you don't understand the legal usage of terminology. See the definitions thread.

Also the issue of if an occupation could be considered illegal is not addressed in any way in this case. Once again its concerning a fense and not the legal standing of Israel's presence in the disputed territories.

Further it is just as accurate to say that the hostile Arab Muslims are belligerently occupying the area as well.

So really you haven't proven anything other than you don't comprehend the language being used, the subject of the case or that the use of this language is cavalier at best and in no way the subject of this judgement .

A lawyer friend put it best when he said

Quote

The Israeli Supreme Court has never ruled that the West Bank is occupied. It has assumed it arguendo because the Israeli government decided in 1967 to grant residents of the West Bank all humanitarian protections in the laws of belligerent occupation as a matter of good will. While the cases of the Supreme Court sometimes say that the law that applies to the West Bank is the law of belligerent occupation without further explanation, there is not a single case where they have examined the issue and come to the legal conclusion that the West Bank is belligerently occupied territory.


It is true that the Israeli Supreme Court has been increasingly sloppy about this in recent years (the last 6-8 years), and one can therefore find lots of sentences like “the West Bank is occupied territory,” these are not and never have been sentences that are part of the holding of the court. To repeat: there is not a single case where they have examined the issue, considered pro and con arguments, and come to the legal conclusion that the West Bank is belligerently occupied territory.


Additionally, the question of whether the laws of belligerent occupation apply to the West Bank is legally distinct from the question of sovereignty. The argument that the International Court of Justice used to apply the laws of belligerent occupation to the West Bank is that belligerent occupation laws apply whenever territory is captured in war, no matter what its sovereign status. In fact, the ICJ specifically threw up its hands when it came to ruling what the sovereign status of the West Bank is.


In other words, the only way for serious international lawyers to argue that the laws of belligerent occupation apply to the West Bank is to concede that laws of occupation have nothing to do with sovereignty, and therefore to concede that they cannot use the laws of occupation to argue against Israeli sovereign rights, or in favor of alleged Palestinian sovereign rights.

End Quote

You might also do well to review the Oslo accords. In which the Israeli presence is agreed to by the PA.

On any number of scores, there is no occupation.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"The Israeli occupation of the OPT violates the three basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation and is, therefore, intrinsically illegal. This section discusses the basic principles informing this normative regime and then applies them to the Israeli occupation. Sub-section (1), The Evolving Concept of Occupation, discusses the major cornerstones in the development of this normative regime and the extent of their applicability to the occupation at hand. Subsection (2), Occupation Suspends Sovereignty, focuses on the first basic tenet of this regime, that is, that occupation does not confer title. Sub-section (3), Trust Matters, discusses the second basic principle of the normative regime of occupation, according to which an occupation regime is a form of trust under which the occupant, without forsaking its own security interests, is nevertheless obligated to act as a trustee on behalf of the occupied population. Sub-section (4), Right on Time, is concerned with the last basic principle of the normative regime of occupation, which decrees that an occupation must be temporary, as distinct from indefinite. In each sub-section, the normative conclusions generated by the discussion are then applied to the Israeli occupation of the OPT."

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil

OK, how does that address the problem? Should we give them a fine? Are you planning to march the blue hats into Jerusalem to kick some butt?

Here's the deal. The world is lining up against Israel. Some of this is based on anti-Semitism (the worst of it), but some of it is based on simple frustration. You can't influence the Palestinians. So, they lean on Israel. Are they banking on US veto power to make sure this pressure never really amounts to anything? So they can hide behind that fact and appear to be taking the high ground?

None of it gets us any closer to a solution, though. From an Israeli perspective, they are at war with an implacable enemy. If they felt they were not in danger they would have elected Tzipi Livni. How anyone rational can believe that Israel is not being constantly threatened, well that's a mystery to me.

From the Israeli perspective discussing "occupied territory" is meaningless. After putting down war after war after intifada they still haven't gotten their enemy to submit. Extremism is met with extremism. Settlements are pressure. They would not exist except for the irrationality of Arab culture.