As I understand it, the precepts of international law applicable to Palestine came into effect in the wake of WWII:
No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory
"Military occupation is a recognized status under international law and since 1967, the international community has designated the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as militarily occupied.
"As long as the occupation continues, Israel has the right to protect itself and its citizens from attacks by Palestinians who reside in the occupied territories.
"However, Israel also has a duty to maintain law and order, also known as 'normal life,' within territory it occupies.
"This obligation includes not only ensuring but prioritizing the security and well-being of the occupied population. That responsibility and those duties are enumerated in
Occupation Law."
Thanks for your reply, but honestly, you didn't really answer my questions. Furthermore, your post only raised more questions for me. Now, if I may:
1. I asked you: "What is this entity that came up with these international laws, and more importantly, how is it going to enforce them?". You said a bunch of stuff, and I also checked out your links, but I honestly did not see anything that answered my questions in any meaningful way. Your post also did not contain any direct answers to my questions. It's just a bunch of stuff, that although it sounds fine, does not really contain any real meaning, and certainly nothing that tells me, what, to me, is a very important question: what entity has the power to enforce these mysterious international laws, that you keep squawking about?
2. Show me a website that directly lists these international laws. And also, show me the entity that made up these laws.
3. What will happen, if a country does not obey these international laws?
4. I looked up military occupation. Below are the things I found: maintaining public order, respecting existing laws, and ensuring basic needs are met..etc, as the obligations of the occupying power. Now, I am not saying these things are bad, obviously they are good, but, what I don't understand is, why would a country use its military, to attack another country, go into it, only to respect the laws of the conquered people, to ensure the needs of the conquered are met..etc? Again, I am not saying that these things are bad or that an aggressor country should just rape and murder and pillage, but rather, I am asking what is the point of using military aggression to invade another country, only to serve her people? Also, if a country is willing to attack another country, what makes us think that it will be willing to abide by these idealistic-sounding laws and rules? It's almost like asking a rapist, as he is about to rape a woman, to only rape her softly, but not too harshly. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
5. The very fact that there exist rules for military occupation, is fucked up. It's like, we know that military occupation is wrong, but we are gonna let countries engage in it anyway. But our conscience (even though it is very, very tiny), feels pricked very slightly. So we came up with these bullshit rules (that conveniently are not really enforceable by any entity), so as to make us feel less bad. But what we really should do, is to completely ban military occupation, which we know is bad, evidenced by the fact that we felt the need to come up with these rules. This is so stupid, I actually cannot comprehend how anybody who is even half-way sane, can sit there and think to himself: "Look at how I promote and plaster these things all over the internet. I have done my duty to humanity". By the way, just in case I wasn't being clear enough, I am asking you, George, directly. Do you honestly believe that allowing military occupation at all, is a good thing? What is your rationale for not completely banning military occupation?
6. I have noticed that, both here on this board, and elsewhere on the net, that there are now more and more voices that are against Israel and Zionism in general. The first link you provided is one such a voice. Now, obviously I don't know what else you and others who proclaim these things also do, but it seems to me that you are all online activists. You say a bunch of stuff online, but in very obscure, totally uninfluential corners of the internet. Almost like you are trying to impress someone, someone who is online a lot, and who isn't a huge fan of Jews, with the aim of tricking her into believing that something is being done, that people are waking up, that others share her view. It's almost like, you are trying to placate her or something. I wonder if it's because you actually knew what the feds did to her, but chose not to hold the feds accountable for what they did, but instead, you try hard to appease her. Is this true, George?
7. I asked you the question before but you never answered. Are you a part of the ring that hacked into my computers, George? If not, I apologize. If yes, it's OK. But I just have a few questions I would like to ask you.
