SherriMunnerlyn,
et al,
Well, there again, is some truth here.
Yes, this is the direction the movement needs to go; no question.
Miko Peled claims over 90 percent of resistance today is nonviolent resistance. I was just watching a you tube video he was debating a Zionist in from December, I posted it on the Samer Issawi thread, and I am about to order his book The Generals Son on Amazon. Palestinian American Mazin Qumsiyeh also wrote a recent book documenting the growing nonviolent resistance movement. He presently lives in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem.
(COMMENT)
It is better if the Palestinian Movement could use Israel's own records and data to demonstrate a shift in direction from violence to non-violence.
Remember, if you can document an end to hostilities for a year, you can challenge the legitimacy of a continued occupation; if it is a real occupation. This will be the hard part for the Palestinians and the Israelis. Solve the legal equation.
The International Court and address the following questions:
- Is Israel (technically) an "Occupation Power" as defined by the GCIV?
- Is Israel involved in an "illegal occupation?"
- Is there an absolute "right to oppose occupation?"
- Is there an international prohibition "illegal annexation?"
Once this is done, the outcomes will help in the settlement of claims and reparations.
Most Respectfully,
R
All of those questions have been addressed except some legal authority actually defining the term illegal occupation.
The International Court of Justice has already held Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention, no need to do it again.
We have UN Resolutions extending for decades affirming the right of those occupied to resist Occupation, and resistance can lawfully include armed resistance.
The Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocols specifically tell us annexations are unlawful, they change the character of the land.
The problem is not with intl law, intl law is clear, Isreal occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza and only the indigenous Palestinian people have sovereignty rights in that land. The problem is we have no effective mechanism to make Israel abide by intl law and end her unlawful Occupation and stop teh human rights abuses. What the US should be doing is cutting off that 4 billion dollars yearly aid until Israel abides with all of her obligations under intl law.
(COMMENT)
The International Court of Justice has already held Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention, no need to do it again.
(COMMENT)
Reference:
Yes, in this 2003 Advisory was not an adversarial product with competing issues argued. But is assumed
(through Reaffirming) the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) as well as Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and it uses GA Resolution 181, (which is argued by many Palestinian advocates as invalid). If GCIV is applicable then "Occupation" is (at least arguable as) a legitimate method of conducting protection and defensive measures for Israeli National Security. While the advisory focused on the legitimacy of the barriers, it did not focus on the nation security requirements. It does not stand on its own.
We have UN Resolutions extending for decades affirming the right of those occupied to resist Occupation, and resistance can lawfully include armed resistance.
(COMMENT)
Resistance means many things. Clearly the recent Goldstone Report indicated that a number of resistance measures as "terrorist" in nature. Not all the methods used were considered acceptable. The Goldstone Report indicated that the Palestinian Resistance have pursued activities that were "war crimes" and possibly "crime against humanity." But again, the Goldstone Report was not an adversarial product any more than the ICJ Advisory. It needs to be put to the test as well.
The Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocols specifically tell us annexations are unlawful, they change the character of the land.
(COMMENT)
While Article 47, GCIV, is usually the verbiage cited in the arguments by laymen to suggest that "Annexation" is illegal. Actually, it doesn't say that at all. What is say is that the Palestinian cannot be deprived of his property, even in the case of annexation.
Article 47 said:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
SOURCE:
International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention
Annexation is not listed, in the GCIV, as a prohibited action:
Article 147 said:
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Thus, it is not actually a completely settled issue.
Now I understand that between "PF Tinmore" and "yourself," I've discussed each of these issues at length; but I'm not convinced that they have been asked and answered.
AND, since you are both so convinced that your answers are absolutely correct, it cannot possibly hurt the Palestinian Case. And I am betting that many "balanced" observers have questions
(inquiring minds want to know).
I'm not prepared to say one side is entirely right, and once side is entirely wrong. My experience tells me it is a little of both.
Most Respectfully,
R
