Are the Israeli's obligated to allow free passage to persons being held in detention.

[Boston1]

I've often heard the complaint that Israel is illegally preventing palestinians within the disputed territories their rights of self determination when they (the Israeli's) deny free passage to certain palestinian communities considered a threat to national security.

I disagree but I'd welcome any dissenting opinion as I find the discussion a great way to hone my own skills regarding the issue.

I'd note the IV Geneva convention

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

I'd also note

Quote

• 
  Art. 14. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.
  
  Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.

End Quote

Which allows for the negotiated acquisition of land within a disputed territory

And aslo

Quote

• 
  Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without
  distinction:
  
  (a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
  (b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

End Quote

Wich allows Israel to construct safety zones for civilian populations. IE Israeli's living in the disputed territory.

In the end Israel is under no legal obligation to allow either combatants or persons deemed a threat to national security freedom of travel from confinement areas under martial law.

 

[DarkFury]

I've often heard the complaint that Israel is illegally preventing palestinians within the disputed territories their rights of self determination when they (the Israeli's) deny free passage to certain palestinian communities considered a threat to national security.

I disagree but I'd welcome any dissenting opinion as I find the discussion a great way to hone my own skills regarding the issue.

I'd note the IV Geneva convention

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

I'd also note

Quote

• 
  Art. 14. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.
  
  Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.

End Quote

Which allows for the negotiated acquisition of land within a disputed territory

And aslo

Quote

• 
  Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without
  distinction:
  
  (a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
  (b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

End Quote

Wich allows Israel to construct safety zones for civilian populations. IE Israeli's living in the disputed territory.

In the end Israel is under no legal obligation to allow either combatants or persons deemed a threat to national security freedom of travel from confinement areas under martial law.

Well we do NOT disagree so I guess we wait for the democrats to arrive here.

 

[montelatici]

I've often heard the complaint that Israel is illegally preventing palestinians within the disputed territories their rights of self determination when they (the Israeli's) deny free passage to certain palestinian communities considered a threat to national security.

I disagree but I'd welcome any dissenting opinion as I find the discussion a great way to hone my own skills regarding the issue.

I'd note the IV Geneva convention

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

I'd also note

Quote

• 
  Art. 14. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.
  
  Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.

End Quote

Which allows for the negotiated acquisition of land within a disputed territory

And aslo

Quote

• 
  Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without
  distinction:
  
  (a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
  (b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

End Quote

Wich allows Israel to construct safety zones for civilian populations. IE Israeli's living in the disputed territory.

In the end Israel is under no legal obligation to allow either combatants or persons deemed a threat to national security freedom of travel from confinement areas under martial law.

Israel can do whatever it wants to do, it rules over or controls the movement of all the people in historical Palestine. Whether it's legal, moral or illegal makes no difference.

 

[Boston1]

Israel is under no legal obligation to offer safe passage through its own territory to enemy combatants. Its also under no legal restraint to imprison or otherwise restrict those enemy combatants whether they are part of an actual military force or merely part of a civilian population

according to the IV Geneva convention

 

[Mr. H.]

Jews hate non- Jews. End of story.

Next.

 

[Indeependent]

Jews hate non- Jews. End of story.

Next.

Eat it, non-Jew!

 

[Mr. H.]

Jews hate non- Jews. End of story.

Next.

Eat it, non-Jew!

That's MISTER non-Jew to you, bub.

 

[Indeependent]

Jews hate non- Jews. End of story.

Next.

Eat it, non-Jew!

That's MISTER non-Jew to you, bub.

My apologies...Eat it, MISTER non-Jew!

 

[theliq]

I've often heard the complaint that Israel is illegally preventing palestinians within the disputed territories their rights of self determination when they (the Israeli's) deny free passage to certain palestinian communities considered a threat to national security.

I disagree but I'd welcome any dissenting opinion as I find the discussion a great way to hone my own skills regarding the issue.

I'd note the IV Geneva convention

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

I'd also note

Quote

• 
  Art. 14. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.
  
  Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.

End Quote

Which allows for the negotiated acquisition of land within a disputed territory

And aslo

Quote

• 
  Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without
  distinction:
  
  (a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
  (b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

End Quote

Wich allows Israel to construct safety zones for civilian populations. IE Israeli's living in the disputed territory.

In the end Israel is under no legal obligation to allow either combatants or persons deemed a threat to national security freedom of travel from confinement areas under martial law.

I will mention one thing Boss,last year Palestine played in Australia in the Asian Cup Finals....yet they PREVENTED 2 Palestinian players from leaving the occupied terrories sic,these players had no criminal records and were model citizens,we saw this in Australia as BLOODY mindedness,the Chief of the Football Federation was/is Frank Lowy a well know Zionist,he was roundly Booed at every match he attended,rightly so..steve

 

[Boston1]

No country is required to allow entry to any persons they deem a threat to national security.. Including sports figures.


A few years ago the English wouldn't let my tribe participate in the lacrosse championships, not one. They claimed it was our passports so Hilary Clinton offered us US passports but the English still refused. It was nothing more than a grudge dating back about 400 years to the Piquot massacre in which the Iroquois switched sides when they realized the English were killing woman and children and instead of carrying out the attack, helped the Piquot escape. But the English had no legal obligation to allow us entry. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow passage to anyone, for pretty much any reason. Its entirely up to each state. Is there a down side to states rights, of course there is, but states are sovereign and sometimes exorcise that sovereign nature in ways that don't make sense.

In the case of the palestinians, they've proven that they don't respect even sports events, think Munich massacre, and get back to me on why that shouldn't include sporting events.

 

[montelatici]

No country is required to allow entry to any persons they deem a threat to national security.. Including sports figures. A few years ago the English wouldn't let my tribe participate in the lacrosse championships, and we invented the game, not one. They claimed it was our passports so Hilary Clinton offered us US passports but the English still refused. It was nothing more than a grudge dating back about 400 years to the Piquot massacre in which the Iroquois switched sides when they realized the English were killing woman and children and instead of carrying out the attack, helped the Piquot escape. But the English had no legal obligation to allow us entry. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow passage to anyone, for pretty much any reason. Its entirely up to each state. Is there a down side to states rights, of course there is, but states are sovereign and sometimes exorcise that sovereign nature in ways that don't make sense.

In the case of the palestinians, they've proven that they don't respect even sports events, think Munich massacre, and get back to me on why that shouldn't include sporting events.

Native Americans overwhelmingly support the native people, the Palestinians. Are you dancing in this video?

 

[Sunni Man]

Israel is under no legal obligation to offer safe passage through its own territory to enemy combatants. Its also under no legal restraint to imprison or otherwise restrict those enemy combatants whether they are part of an actual military force or merely part of a civilian population

according to the IV Geneva convention

The apartheid state of Israel has its own fascist laws set up to keep the ruling class of zionist jews in power. ......

 

[Boston1]

Israel is under no legal obligation to offer safe passage through its own territory to enemy combatants. Its also under no legal restraint to imprison or otherwise restrict those enemy combatants whether they are part of an actual military force or merely part of a civilian population

according to the IV Geneva convention

The apartheid state of Israel has its own fascist laws set up to keep the ruling class of zionist jews in power. ......

Your hatred is blinding you to reality.

Arab Muslims who are citizens of Israel actively participate in Israeli politics. There is even an Arab Muslim colonist serving on Israel's supreme court. ;--)

Also your use of the term apartheid is all wrong, see the definitions thread ;--) Israel is not an apartheid state.

Nice bait and switch though

Israel is under no more obligation to allow passage to undesirables through it sovereign territory than is any other country.

 

[montelatici]

Israel is under no legal obligation to offer safe passage through its own territory to enemy combatants. Its also under no legal restraint to imprison or otherwise restrict those enemy combatants whether they are part of an actual military force or merely part of a civilian population

according to the IV Geneva convention

The apartheid state of Israel has its own fascist laws set up to keep the ruling class of zionist jews in power. ......

Your hatred is blinding you to reality.

Arab Muslims who are citizens of Israel actively participate in Israeli politics. There is even an Arab Muslim colonist serving on Israel's supreme court. ;--)

Also your use of the term apartheid is all wrong, see the definitions thread ;--) Israel is not an apartheid state.

Nice bait and switch though

Israel is under no more obligation to allow passage to undesirables through it sovereign territory than is any other country.

“In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid,” Chomsky says, according to Days of Palestine. “To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by ‘apartheid’ you mean South African-style apartheid.

“What is happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There is a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce…

“The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just do not want them. They want them out, or at least in prison.”

He described listening to the American mainstream media, such as CBS, like listening directly to the Israeli propaganda agencies. “It is a shameful moment for US media when it insists on being subservient to the grotesque propaganda agencies of a violent, aggressive state [Israel],” he said.

Chomsky accused the United States of continuing to provide the decisive support for the [Israeli] atrocities against the Palestinians.

“When what is called Israeli jet planes bomb defenceless targets in Gaza, that is US jet planes with Israeli pilots,” he said. “And the same with the high-tech munition and so on and so forth. So this is, again, sadism masked as compassion. Those are the actions.”

In a long interview with Democracy now, Chomsky insisted that the US is a violent state and is it exporting violence to other countries like the Israeli occupation."
Noam Chomsky

 

[Hollie]

Israel is under no legal obligation to offer safe passage through its own territory to enemy combatants. Its also under no legal restraint to imprison or otherwise restrict those enemy combatants whether they are part of an actual military force or merely part of a civilian population

according to the IV Geneva convention

The apartheid state of Israel has its own fascist laws set up to keep the ruling class of zionist jews in power. ......

Your hatred is blinding you to reality.

Arab Muslims who are citizens of Israel actively participate in Israeli politics. There is even an Arab Muslim colonist serving on Israel's supreme court. ;--)

Also your use of the term apartheid is all wrong, see the definitions thread ;--) Israel is not an apartheid state.

Nice bait and switch though

Israel is under no more obligation to allow passage to undesirables through it sovereign territory than is any other country.

“In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid,” Chomsky says, according to Days of Palestine. “To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by ‘apartheid’ you mean South African-style apartheid.

“What is happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There is a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce…

“The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just do not want them. They want them out, or at least in prison.”

He described listening to the American mainstream media, such as CBS, like listening directly to the Israeli propaganda agencies. “It is a shameful moment for US media when it insists on being subservient to the grotesque propaganda agencies of a violent, aggressive state [Israel],” he said.

Chomsky accused the United States of continuing to provide the decisive support for the [Israeli] atrocities against the Palestinians.

“When what is called Israeli jet planes bomb defenceless targets in Gaza, that is US jet planes with Israeli pilots,” he said. “And the same with the high-tech munition and so on and so forth. So this is, again, sadism masked as compassion. Those are the actions.”

In a long interview with Democracy now, Chomsky insisted that the US is a violent state and is it exporting violence to other countries like the Israeli occupation."
Noam Chomsky

Typical Monty'ism

When his arguments are shot down in flames, he dumps a long, irrelevant cut and paste into the thread in the hopes of hiding his embarrassment.

 

[Boston1]

No country is required to allow entry to any persons they deem a threat to national security.. Including sports figures. A few years ago the English wouldn't let my tribe participate in the lacrosse championships, and we invented the game, not one. They claimed it was our passports so Hilary Clinton offered us US passports but the English still refused. It was nothing more than a grudge dating back about 400 years to the Piquot massacre in which the Iroquois switched sides when they realized the English were killing woman and children and instead of carrying out the attack, helped the Piquot escape. But the English had no legal obligation to allow us entry. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow passage to anyone, for pretty much any reason. Its entirely up to each state. Is there a down side to states rights, of course there is, but states are sovereign and sometimes exorcise that sovereign nature in ways that don't make sense.

In the case of the palestinians, they've proven that they don't respect even sports events, think Munich massacre, and get back to me on why that shouldn't include sporting events.

Native Americans overwhelmingly support the native people, the Palestinians. Are you dancing in this video?

Well this little ditty in racist propaganda needs to be addressed

But first, I can't help but notice that you once again are seeking to distract from the actual topic which you apparently are unable to address.

I guess in fact Israel just like any other nation IS NOT required to offer uninhibited access through its territory.

That said its interesting to note that just like most racists you seem to think that what one native american thinks is somehow representative of what they all think.

Sorry but as an American ( dual citizen actually ) I can assure you that most of my brothers fully support first nations rights. And you lost the first nations question about 1000 years ago when the Arab Muslim colonists arrived in Canaan and began the first of many pogroms ridding the land of its native inhabitants.

 

[montelatici]

No country is required to allow entry to any persons they deem a threat to national security.. Including sports figures. A few years ago the English wouldn't let my tribe participate in the lacrosse championships, and we invented the game, not one. They claimed it was our passports so Hilary Clinton offered us US passports but the English still refused. It was nothing more than a grudge dating back about 400 years to the Piquot massacre in which the Iroquois switched sides when they realized the English were killing woman and children and instead of carrying out the attack, helped the Piquot escape. But the English had no legal obligation to allow us entry. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow passage to anyone, for pretty much any reason. Its entirely up to each state. Is there a down side to states rights, of course there is, but states are sovereign and sometimes exorcise that sovereign nature in ways that don't make sense.

In the case of the palestinians, they've proven that they don't respect even sports events, think Munich massacre, and get back to me on why that shouldn't include sporting events.

Native Americans overwhelmingly support the native people, the Palestinians. Are you dancing in this video?

Well this little ditty in racist propaganda needs to be addressed

But first, I can't help but notice that you once again are seeking to distract from the actual topic which you apparently are unable to address.

I guess in fact Israel just like any other nation IS NOT required to offer uninhibited access through its territory.

That said its interesting to note that just like most racists you seem to think that what one native american thinks is somehow representative of what they all think.

Sorry but as an American ( dual citizen actually ) I can assure you that most of my brothers fully support first nations rights. And you lost the first nations question about 1000 years ago when the Arab Muslim colonists arrived in Canaan and began the first of many pogroms ridding the land of its native inhabitants.

How did the native inhabitants of Palestine lose their "indigenous rights" by changing religion? Do Native Americans that adopt Christianity lose their 'indigenous rights"? The Muslims found only Christians in Palaestina Prima when they conquered it. Most of the Christians, but not all, converted to Islam subsequently. You are not making sense.

 

[Hollie]

No country is required to allow entry to any persons they deem a threat to national security.. Including sports figures. A few years ago the English wouldn't let my tribe participate in the lacrosse championships, and we invented the game, not one. They claimed it was our passports so Hilary Clinton offered us US passports but the English still refused. It was nothing more than a grudge dating back about 400 years to the Piquot massacre in which the Iroquois switched sides when they realized the English were killing woman and children and instead of carrying out the attack, helped the Piquot escape. But the English had no legal obligation to allow us entry. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow passage to anyone, for pretty much any reason. Its entirely up to each state. Is there a down side to states rights, of course there is, but states are sovereign and sometimes exorcise that sovereign nature in ways that don't make sense.

In the case of the palestinians, they've proven that they don't respect even sports events, think Munich massacre, and get back to me on why that shouldn't include sporting events.

Native Americans overwhelmingly support the native people, the Palestinians. Are you dancing in this video?

Well this little ditty in racist propaganda needs to be addressed

But first, I can't help but notice that you once again are seeking to distract from the actual topic which you apparently are unable to address.

I guess in fact Israel just like any other nation IS NOT required to offer uninhibited access through its territory.

That said its interesting to note that just like most racists you seem to think that what one native american thinks is somehow representative of what they all think.

Sorry but as an American ( dual citizen actually ) I can assure you that most of my brothers fully support first nations rights. And you lost the first nations question about 1000 years ago when the Arab Muslim colonists arrived in Canaan and began the first of many pogroms ridding the land of its native inhabitants.

How did the native inhabitants of Palestine lose their "indigenous rights" by changing religion? Do Native Americans that adopt Christianity lose their 'indigenous rights"? The Muslims found only Christians in Palaestina Prima when they conquered it. Most of the Christians, but not all, converted to Islam subsequently. You are not making sense.

When did the invading Islamist hordes (Ottoman's and later the Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian squatters), become indigenous?