Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[Phoenall]

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention

• 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.

III Convention

• Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
• Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
• Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

• Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote

• Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
• In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
• In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
• The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
• (a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
• (b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.

Well in your weird world perhaps.....but already Warrants have been issued against Nit and Yar Who? and others for Crimes Against Humanity.....Let the Beast fly to Belgium,Spain and other places....so they can send him/them to the Criminal Court of International Justice in Den Hague......for his/their Crimes.

Please come to Belgium

Which are invalid if you read the laws regarding the writs. They are personal charges and have to be tried in the country of origin. They are not International arrest warrants and so can not be tried by the ICC/ICJ or in the Hague.



But the truth is



Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News



A judge in Spain’s National Court in 2010 determined that the country no longer has the authority to file lawsuits in international incidents and referred the case to the International Criminal Court, which dismissed it.

But Judge Jose de la Mata found a loophole Friday that would allow Spanish authorities to re-open their investigation of the raid if any of the officials enter Spain



So no crimes against humanity just hostile witnesses, and I believe the warrant has since been nulled.




The mighty liar liq is found out again and shown to be spreading incitement against the Jews.

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,

Well, some of this is practical and some is not.

But the truth is

Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News

A judge in Spain’s National Court in 2010 determined that the country no longer has the authority to file lawsuits in international incidents and referred the case to the International Criminal Court, which dismissed it.

But Judge Jose de la Mata found a loophole Friday that would allow Spanish authorities to re-open their investigation of the raid if any of the officials enter Spain

So no crimes against humanity just hostile witnesses, and I believe the warrant has since been nulled.

The mighty liar liq is found out again and shown to be spreading incitement against the Jews.

(COMMENT - I AM NOT A LAWYER or NATIONALITY EXPERT)

(So I'll Speak in generalities that are common to many nations; and in broad brush strokes.)​

Israel can only deport people from the sovereign territory of Israel itself; and not the West Bank --- and certainly not the Gaza Strip.

Normally (and I say normally because there are just a how volume on the issue) initiatiation of deportation procedures comes in one of four broad categories. They are the most common triggers for such procedures:

• Serious Criminal Activity (Examples but not limited to)

∆ Violent crime
∆ Aggravated assault
∆ Fraud
∆ Weapons violations
∆ Forgery and counterfeiting
​

• Crimes which affect National Security

∆ As part of bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
∆ As part of enforcing relevant international conventions and protocols relating to the illicit trafficking of contraband; including the International Convention for the Suppression of:

∫ The Incitement, providing Marterial Support and Financing of Terrorism
∫ The Illicit Trafficking of SALWs
∫ Acts prohibited by law that constitutes incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts
​

• Specified behavior or “conduct” inconsistent with their Visa Status

∆ There are several nations that have identities designated other states as , or so, states.
∆ Any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of providing safe haven to Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and other radical Asymmetric fights.
​

• Certain findings of a court or administrative agency

∆ Persons that committed an act which is considered a breach of loyalty to the country.
∆ Citizenship was granted on the basis of false information
​

In general, Israel will only initiate deportation, expulsion or forced removal – physically removing from Israeli Sovereign Territory to a country presumed to be the country origin, or habitual residence, or a country they have transited or to which they have agreed to be removed rather than being returned to their country of origin.

Israel does not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip, so the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from Gaza does not apply.

In the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians are habitual residents. So the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from West Bank does not apply.

(FINALLY)

I don't think that there is much of a real practical application of the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal; relative to the Arab -- Israeli Conflict.

Even the Arab--Palestinians cannot really define the scope and nature of their country.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,

Well, some of this is practical and some is not.

But the truth is

Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News

A judge in Spain’s National Court in 2010 determined that the country no longer has the authority to file lawsuits in international incidents and referred the case to the International Criminal Court, which dismissed it.

But Judge Jose de la Mata found a loophole Friday that would allow Spanish authorities to re-open their investigation of the raid if any of the officials enter Spain

So no crimes against humanity just hostile witnesses, and I believe the warrant has since been nulled.

The mighty liar liq is found out again and shown to be spreading incitement against the Jews.

(COMMENT - I AM NOT A LAWYER or NATIONALITY EXPERT)

(So I'll Speak in generalities that are common to many nations; and in broad brush strokes.)​

Israel can only deport people from the sovereign territory of Israel itself; and not the West Bank --- and certainly not the Gaza Strip.

Normally (and I say normally because there are just a how volume on the issue) initiatiation of deportation procedures comes in one of four broad categories. They are the most common triggers for such procedures:

• Serious Criminal Activity (Examples but not limited to)

∆ Violent crime
∆ Aggravated assault
∆ Fraud
∆ Weapons violations
∆ Forgery and counterfeiting
​

• Crimes which affect National Security

∆ As part of bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
∆ As part of enforcing relevant international conventions and protocols relating to the illicit trafficking of contraband; including the International Convention for the Suppression of:

∫ The Incitement, providing Marterial Support and Financing of Terrorism
∫ The Illicit Trafficking of SALWs
∫ Acts prohibited by law that constitutes incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts
​

• Specified behavior or “conduct” inconsistent with their Visa Status

∆ There are several nations that have identities designated other states as , or so, states.
∆ Any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of providing safe haven to Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and other radical Asymmetric fights.
​

• Certain findings of a court or administrative agency

∆ Persons that committed an act which is considered a breach of loyalty to the country.
∆ Citizenship was granted on the basis of false information
​

In general, Israel will only initiate deportation, expulsion or forced removal – physically removing from Israeli Sovereign Territory to a country presumed to be the country origin, or habitual residence, or a country they have transited or to which they have agreed to be removed rather than being returned to their country of origin.

Israel does not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip, so the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from Gaza does not apply.

In the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians are habitual residents. So the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from West Bank does not apply.

(FINALLY)

I don't think that there is much of a real practical application of the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal; relative to the Arab -- Israeli Conflict.

Even the Arab--Palestinians cannot really define the scope and nature of their country.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ah but the Geneva conventions does not require that a combatant restrict its authority to sovereign territory.

IV Geneva Convention

Quote

• Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
• Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
• The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
• Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
• 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.
• In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

End Quote

Its quite clear that one only needs be in the territory or occupied territory of a combatant.

There's no mention of the term sovereign territory

Ergo if Israel controls it, ( and I'd agree about Gaza in that Israel does not control it ) The disputed territories for instance. Then Israel have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status.

Particularly since the Disputed territories are under martial law. In which case again the Geneva Conventions are the predominant international representation of law.

 

[theliq]

Yeah,and since 1948 Israel has breached over 22,000 ....so you point was............Deafening Silence as usual

 

[Boston1]

Yeah,and since 1948 Israel has breached over 22,000 ....so you point was............Deafening Silence as usual

Not sure who you are referring to. Also 22,000 what ?

The thread is concerning Israel's potential use of the Geneva Conventions. Given that the state of war still exists and the conventions are the accepted international law governing war.

 

[Phoenall]

Yeah,and since 1948 Israel has breached over 22,000 ....so you point was............Deafening Silence as usual

Then why haven't they been kicked out of the UN, or issued with arrest warrants to be tried at the HAGUE

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

You have me confused.

Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,

Well, some of this is practical and some is not.

But the truth is

Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News

A judge in Spain’s National Court in 2010 determined that the country no longer has the authority to file lawsuits in international incidents and referred the case to the International Criminal Court, which dismissed it.

But Judge Jose de la Mata found a loophole Friday that would allow Spanish authorities to re-open their investigation of the raid if any of the officials enter Spain

So no crimes against humanity just hostile witnesses, and I believe the warrant has since been nulled.

The mighty liar liq is found out again and shown to be spreading incitement against the Jews.

(COMMENT - I AM NOT A LAWYER or NATIONALITY EXPERT)

(So I'll Speak in generalities that are common to many nations; and in broad brush strokes.)​

Israel can only deport people from the sovereign territory of Israel itself; and not the West Bank --- and certainly not the Gaza Strip.

Normally (and I say normally because there are just a how volume on the issue) initiatiation of deportation procedures comes in one of four broad categories. They are the most common triggers for such procedures:

• Serious Criminal Activity (Examples but not limited to)

∆ Violent crime
∆ Aggravated assault
∆ Fraud
∆ Weapons violations
∆ Forgery and counterfeiting
​

• Crimes which affect National Security

∆ As part of bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
∆ As part of enforcing relevant international conventions and protocols relating to the illicit trafficking of contraband; including the International Convention for the Suppression of:

∫ The Incitement, providing Marterial Support and Financing of Terrorism
∫ The Illicit Trafficking of SALWs
∫ Acts prohibited by law that constitutes incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts
​

• Specified behavior or “conduct” inconsistent with their Visa Status

∆ There are several nations that have identities designated other states as , or so, states.
∆ Any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of providing safe haven to Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and other radical Asymmetric fights.
​

• Certain findings of a court or administrative agency

∆ Persons that committed an act which is considered a breach of loyalty to the country.
∆ Citizenship was granted on the basis of false information
​

In general, Israel will only initiate deportation, expulsion or forced removal – physically removing from Israeli Sovereign Territory to a country presumed to be the country origin, or habitual residence, or a country they have transited or to which they have agreed to be removed rather than being returned to their country of origin.

Israel does not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip, so the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from Gaza does not apply.

In the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians are habitual residents. So the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from West Bank does not apply.

(FINALLY)

I don't think that there is much of a real practical application of the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal; relative to the Arab -- Israeli Conflict.

Even the Arab--Palestinians cannot really define the scope and nature of their country.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ah but the Geneva conventions does not require that a combatant restrict its authority to sovereign territory.

IV Geneva Convention

Quote

• Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
• Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
• The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
• Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
• 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.
• In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

End Quote

Its quite clear that one only needs be in the territory or occupied territory of a combatant.

There's no mention of the term sovereign territory

Ergo if Israel controls it, ( and I'd agree about Gaza in that Israel does not control it ) The disputed territories for instance. Then Israel have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status.

Particularly since the Disputed territories are under martial law. In which case again the Geneva Conventions are the predominant international representation of law.

(COMMENT)

I've lost the emphasis and key to the issue in question.

A party to the conflict does not get to define anything. It can make some decisions and it can make some interpretations; BUT it cannot define anything. The concepts behind a "protected Person," a "civilian," a "refugee," "POWs" and a individuals "not participating" (etc) are already defined.
​

The application of these definition are actually the same, without regard to their location. What does make a difference, relative to a governance of areas in dispute are: deportation, expulsion or forced removal. These ideas are not nomenclature oriented. They are temporal relative to geographic locations.

What you've said, supra, is all true; except for one small point. Israel "DOES NOT" have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status. The application of those terms and definitions are predetermined and either adequately describe individuals or they do not.

• A "refugee" is defined by Chapter I, Article Ia, of the Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

• Persons who are "eligible to register" to receive UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) services and those who are eligible to receive services without being registered" are defined by the UNRWA in the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI).

• The definitions for "combatants and non-combatants” are set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I.

• The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I.

• "Protected Persons" by the Fourth Geneva Convention in both Article 4, and subject to the restrictions of Article 13, and persons who commit offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, are handled in Article 68.

• Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power are defined in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Not to be confused with the crime itself (deportation -- forcible transfer -- forced displacement -- the expulsion or other coercive acts) defined by International Criminal Court under Article 7 of the Rome Statutes. Whereas the The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population is defined separately under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes.
​

Either a person/individual meets the definition, or does not. Israel does not get to decide under their own criteria the legal definition. Interestingly enough, a person may fit more than one definition.

"I" must have misunderstood the key issue in question. And I apologize. I had thought the key issue under discussion was deportation -- forcible transfer -- forced displacement -- immigration -- naturalization -- entry denial -- and expulsion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Weatherman2020]

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention

• 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.

III Convention

• Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
• Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
• Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

• Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote

• Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
• In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
• In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
• The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
• (a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
• (b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.

What's international law say about the Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians?

 

[RoccoR]

Weatherman2020, et al,

I find this rather an interesting question.

Theoretically, when there is an alternative choice (meaning no military imperative or specific military objective) --- OR --- target selection is discretionary and it is possible to shift targeting between several military objectives and obtaining a similar military advantage or battle outcome, the alternate target that will cause the least danger to civilians must be selected. Article 57(3), Protocol I, Fourth Geneva Convention.
​

What's international law say about the Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians?

(COMMENT)

This is a question yet to be tested relative to its application on the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). The HoAP have no special authority under law to target civilians. Nor do the HoAP have a any special authority to use any and all means available against the Occupying Power or the citizens of any state.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weatherman2020, et al,

I find this rather an interesting question.

Theoretically, when there is an alternative choice (meaning no military imperative or specific military objective) --- OR --- target selection is discretionary and it is possible to shift targeting between several military objectives and obtaining a similar military advantage or battle outcome, the alternate target that will cause the least danger to civilians must be selected. Article 57(3), Protocol I, Fourth Geneva Convention.
​

What's international law say about the Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians?

(COMMENT)

This is a question yet to be tested relative to its application on the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP). The HoAP have no special authority under law to target civilians. Nor do the HoAP have a any special authority to use any and all means available against the Occupying Power or the citizens of any state.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thus firing thousands of missiles at civilian population centers rather than at military bases means there should be a war crimes trial for all Palestinians involved.

 

[Phoenall]

There's no need for courts, international or otherwise. The laws already spelled out. Beyond that, Israel's only responsible for the hostile Arab Muslims to the point of exit. There's no requirement or obligation for Israel to establish their final destination. Lead them to the border and out they go.

As long as Israel followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter they'd be within their rights. Just like any other country.

What it boils down to is that Israel isn't responsible for or required to host, hostile foreign nationals. Just because Jordan stripped them of their citizenship doesn't mean Israel is stuck with them. The Geneva Conventions are really clear, enemy combatants may be detained and repatriated at any time.

III Geneva convention

Quote

Art 39. Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

End Quote

Which makes it very clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of POWs

So who's a POW

Quote

IV Convention

• 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.

III Convention

• Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
• Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
• Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

End Quote

Which clearly covers hostile Arab Muslims within Israel and leads to a very interesting article

Quote

Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

End Quote

Article 7 of the III Geneva Convention removes the right of the prisoner to renounce the laws and procedures set down in the Geneva Conventions. IE they don't get an option.

Israel may segregate combatants from non combatants

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

• Art 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

End Quote

And the grand finale'

Israel is only responsible for POWs up to the point of debarkation, and there is no restriction as to when a POW may be repatriated.

Quote

• Art 118. Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
• In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.
• In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.
• The costs of repatriation of prisoners of war shall in all cases be equitably apportioned between the Detaining Power and the Power on which the prisoners depend. This apportionment shall be carried out on the following basis:
• (a) If the two Powers are contiguous, the Power on which the prisoners of war depend shall bear the costs of repatriation from the frontiers of the Detaining Power.
• (b) If the two Powers are not contiguous, the Detaining Power shall bear the costs of transport of prisoners of war over its own territory as far as its frontier or its port of embarkation nearest to the territory of the Power on which the prisoners of war depend. The Parties concerned shall agree between themselves as to the equitable apportionment of the remaining costs of the repatriation. The conclusion of this agreement shall in no circumstances justify any delay in the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

End Quote

Israel's legal right to detain and repatriate POWs is well established within the Geneva Conventions. Israel has only to execute its rights.

What's international law say about the Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians?

It says they are very naughty boys and girls and will be sent to bed without any supper.

 

[Boston1]

Boston1, et al,

You have me confused.

Phoenall, theliq, Boston1, et al,

Well, some of this is practical and some is not.

But the truth is

Spain issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over deadly 2010 flotilla raid | Fox News

A judge in Spain’s National Court in 2010 determined that the country no longer has the authority to file lawsuits in international incidents and referred the case to the International Criminal Court, which dismissed it.

But Judge Jose de la Mata found a loophole Friday that would allow Spanish authorities to re-open their investigation of the raid if any of the officials enter Spain

So no crimes against humanity just hostile witnesses, and I believe the warrant has since been nulled.

The mighty liar liq is found out again and shown to be spreading incitement against the Jews.

(COMMENT - I AM NOT A LAWYER or NATIONALITY EXPERT)

(So I'll Speak in generalities that are common to many nations; and in broad brush strokes.)​

Israel can only deport people from the sovereign territory of Israel itself; and not the West Bank --- and certainly not the Gaza Strip.

Normally (and I say normally because there are just a how volume on the issue) initiatiation of deportation procedures comes in one of four broad categories. They are the most common triggers for such procedures:

• Serious Criminal Activity (Examples but not limited to)

∆ Violent crime
∆ Aggravated assault
∆ Fraud
∆ Weapons violations
∆ Forgery and counterfeiting
​

• Crimes which affect National Security

∆ As part of bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
∆ As part of enforcing relevant international conventions and protocols relating to the illicit trafficking of contraband; including the International Convention for the Suppression of:

∫ The Incitement, providing Marterial Support and Financing of Terrorism
∫ The Illicit Trafficking of SALWs
∫ Acts prohibited by law that constitutes incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts
​

• Specified behavior or “conduct” inconsistent with their Visa Status

∆ There are several nations that have identities designated other states as , or so, states.
∆ Any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of providing safe haven to Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and other radical Asymmetric fights.
​

• Certain findings of a court or administrative agency

∆ Persons that committed an act which is considered a breach of loyalty to the country.
∆ Citizenship was granted on the basis of false information
​

In general, Israel will only initiate deportation, expulsion or forced removal – physically removing from Israeli Sovereign Territory to a country presumed to be the country origin, or habitual residence, or a country they have transited or to which they have agreed to be removed rather than being returned to their country of origin.

Israel does not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip, so the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from Gaza does not apply.

In the West Bank, the Arab Palestinians are habitual residents. So the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal from West Bank does not apply.

(FINALLY)

I don't think that there is much of a real practical application of the concept of deportation, expulsion or forced removal; relative to the Arab -- Israeli Conflict.

Even the Arab--Palestinians cannot really define the scope and nature of their country.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ah but the Geneva conventions does not require that a combatant restrict its authority to sovereign territory.

IV Geneva Convention

Quote

• Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
• Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
• The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
• Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
• 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.
• In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

End Quote

Its quite clear that one only needs be in the territory or occupied territory of a combatant.

There's no mention of the term sovereign territory

Ergo if Israel controls it, ( and I'd agree about Gaza in that Israel does not control it ) The disputed territories for instance. Then Israel have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status.

Particularly since the Disputed territories are under martial law. In which case again the Geneva Conventions are the predominant international representation of law.

(COMMENT)

I've lost the emphasis and key to the issue in question.

A party to the conflict does not get to define anything. It can make some decisions and it can make some interpretations; BUT it cannot define anything. The concepts behind a "protected Person," a "civilian," a "refugee," "POWs" and a individuals "not participating" (etc) are already defined.
​

The application of these definition are actually the same, without regard to their location. What does make a difference, relative to a governance of areas in dispute are: deportation, expulsion or forced removal. These ideas are not nomenclature oriented. They are temporal relative to geographic locations.

What you've said, supra, is all true; except for one small point. Israel "DOES NOT" have every right to make a determination of refugee, civilian or combatant status. The application of those terms and definitions are predetermined and either adequately describe individuals or they do not.

• A "refugee" is defined by Chapter I, Article Ia, of the Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

• Persons who are "eligible to register" to receive UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) services and those who are eligible to receive services without being registered" are defined by the UNRWA in the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI).

• The definitions for "combatants and non-combatants” are set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I.

• The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I.

• "Protected Persons" by the Fourth Geneva Convention in both Article 4, and subject to the restrictions of Article 13, and persons who commit offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, are handled in Article 68.

• Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power are defined in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Not to be confused with the crime itself (deportation -- forcible transfer -- forced displacement -- the expulsion or other coercive acts) defined by International Criminal Court under Article 7 of the Rome Statutes. Whereas the The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population is defined separately under Article 8 of the Rome Statutes.
​

Either a person/individual meets the definition, or does not. Israel does not get to decide under their own criteria the legal definition. Interestingly enough, a person may fit more than one definition.

"I" must have misunderstood the key issue in question. And I apologize. I had thought the key issue under discussion was deportation -- forcible transfer -- forced displacement -- immigration -- naturalization -- entry denial -- and expulsion.

Most Respectfully,
R

I was thinking repatriation of non protected persons all the way. POWs which IMHO includes those who've lost their protected persons status may be repatriated. Its civilians and refugees who may not be subject to forcible transfer from what I can see. On that I think we agree.

Since virtually all Arab Muslims in Israel's, last national identity was Jordanian, I'd be inclined to say they could be sent their, however, Israel isn't responsible for where they end up, only that they depart in good condition.

I believe the aspect of the treaty you outline are in regards to civilians or refugees. But no effort has ever been made to segregate the combatants from the civilians and refugees and treat them accordingly. I'm suggesting that no peace can be found while these combatant elements remain within the Israeli boundaries.

I need to go through the links, its early and I don't much time right now but yeah, I may have misunderstood you.

 

[montelatici]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are? You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, I think this is actually much more true than sarcastic.

The growing scale of self-serving and dishonest action by the UN and its institutions has eroded trust and confidence of many worldwide; where government agencies, the international courts, and political leaders have all been seen more abuses of power these days than in decades past.

Relative to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, selective enforcement occurs when international officials such as UN Refugee Agency, legal scholars, international courts and professional institutions, and UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) exercise pronouncement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to impune Israel on the question of international law violations, while ignoring the actions of the Palestinians.

It says they are very naughty boys and girls and will be sent to bed without any supper.

(COMMENT)

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has implied many times that Israel has committed war crimes in its countermeasures and operations against HAMAS where hundreds of Palestinian civilians were placed in harm's way. Commissioner Pillay has implied that Israel was not doing enough to protect civilians. “There is a strong possibility,” said the known Israel critic, “that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.” Not once did Commission Pillay suggest that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) failed to Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas; or that the HoAP Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives. Nor did the Commissioner emphasize the prohibition on human shields, as everything feasible effort must be done to separate military objectives from the civilian population. And that because of the HoAP failure to distance hostile operations or remove civilians --- an inordinate number were casualties in what appears to be --- the use of those civilians to shield otherwise legitimate HoAP activities.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are? You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015

Yikes

Although I did enjoy you shooting yourself in the foot again.

I wonder if you bother reading what you cut and paste. Or if you just hope no one else does.


Quote

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.
End Quote

Looks to me by your own admission Israel is obligated to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Exactly as I've been saying all along.

One is a protected person, the other is not.

The UN also spells out in its own operating guidelines, processes by which combatants are segregated from refugees. But that might be a little complex for you Monty

The Geneva Conventions specifically outlines two very different permissible treatments for persons considered protected ( either refugees or civilians ) and those considered combatants.

 

[Boston1]

Maybe we should review just who a combatant is outside the Geneva conventions definition.

From

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiHkPCjl9LLAhXEsYMKHQF_B1QQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule3&usg=AFQjCNEkXoF6zn79TJt9CrzoPxzqA6ZvqA&sig2=o2OTO2t7uu2OZqVsUVjGAA&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote

Rule 3. Definition of Combatants

Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.

Summary

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law in international armed conflicts. For purposes of the principle of distinction (see Rule 1), members of State armed forces may be considered combatants in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Combatant status, on the other hand, exists only in international armed conflicts (see introductory note to Chapter 33).

International armed conflicts

This rule goes back to the Hague Regulations, according to which “the armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants”.[1] It is now set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I.[2]

Numerous military manuals contain this definition of combatants.[3] It is supported by official statements and reported practice.[4] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[5]

No official contrary practice was found.

Non-international armed conflicts

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II refer to “armed forces” and Additional Protocol II also to “dissident armed forces and other organized armed groups”. These concepts are not further defined in the practice pertaining to non-international armed conflicts. While State armed forces may be considered combatants for purposes of the principle of distinction (see Rule 1), practice is not clear as to the situation of members of armed opposition groups. Practice does indicate, however, that persons do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians when they take a direct part in hostilities (see Rule 6).

Persons taking a direct part in hostilities in non-international armed conflicts are sometimes labelled “combatants”. For example, in a resolution on respect for human rights in armed conflict adopted in 1970, the UN General Assembly speaks of “combatants in all armed conflicts”.[6] More recently, the term “combatant” was used in the Cairo Declaration and Cairo Plan of Action for both types of conflicts.[7] However, this designation is only used in its generic meaning and indicates that these persons do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians, but this does not imply a right to combatant status or prisoner-of-war status, as applicable in international armed conflicts (see Chapter 33). The lawfulness of direct participation in hostilities in non-international armed conflicts is governed by national law. While such persons could also be called “fighters”, this term would be translated as “combatant” in a number of languages and is therefore not wholly satisfactory either.

Treaty provisions use different designations that can apply to “fighters” in the context of non-international armed conflicts, including: persons taking active part in the hostilities;[8] members of dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups;[9] persons who take a direct part in hostilities;[10] civilians who take a direct part in hostilities;[11] civilians taking direct part in hostilities;[12] and combatant adversary.[13] The uncertainty about the qualification of members of armed opposition groups is further addressed in the commentaries to Rules 5 and 6.

Interpretation

According to this rule, when military medical and religious personnel are members of the armed forces, they are nevertheless considered non-combatants. According to the First Geneva Convention, temporary medical personnel have to be respected and protected as non-combatants only as long as the medical assignment lasts (see commentary to Rule 25).[14] As is the case for civilians (see Rule 6), respect for non-combatants is contingent on their abstaining from taking a direct part in hostilities.

The military manuals of Germany and the United States point out that there can be other non-combatant members of the armed forces besides medical and religious personnel. Germany’s Military Manual explains that “combatants are persons who may take a direct part in hostilities, i.e., participate in the use of a weapon or a weapon-system in an indispensable function”, and specifies, therefore, that “persons who are members of the armed forces but do not have any combat mission, such as judges, government officials and blue-collar workers, are non-combatants”.[15] The US Naval Handbook states that “civil defense personnel and members of the armed forces who have acquired civil defense status” are non-combatants, in addition to medical and religious personnel.[16]

Non-combatant members of the armed forces are not to be confused, however, with civilians accompanying armed forces who are not members of the armed forces by definition.[17]

While in some countries, entire segments of the population between certain ages may be drafted into the armed forces in the event of armed conflict, only those persons who are actually drafted, i.e., who are actually incorporated into the armed forces, can be considered combatants. Potential mobilization does not render the person concerned a combatant liable to attack.[18]


[1] Hague Regulations, Article 3 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 1, § 571).

[2] Additional Protocol I, Article 43(2) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 572).

[3] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., § 574), Australia (ibid., § 575), Belgium (ibid., § 576), Benin (ibid., § 577), Cameroon (ibid., § 578), Canada (ibid., § 579), Colombia (ibid., § 580), Croatia (ibid., §§ 581–582), Dominican Republic (ibid., § 583), Ecuador (ibid., § 584), France (ibid., §§ 585–586), Germany (ibid., § 587), Hungary (ibid., § 588), Indonesia (ibid., § 589), Israel (ibid., § 590), Italy (ibid., §§ 591–592), Kenya (ibid., § 593), South Korea (ibid., § 594), Madagascar (ibid., § 595), Netherlands (ibid., § 596), New Zealand (ibid., § 597), Russia (ibid., § 598), South Africa (ibid., § 599), Spain (ibid., § 600), Sweden (ibid., § 601), Togo (ibid., § 602), United Kingdom (ibid., § 603) and United States (ibid., §§ 604–606).

[4] See, e.g., the practice of Argentina (ibid., 611), India (ibid., § 612), Iraq (ibid., § 613), Japan (ibid., § 614), Jordan (ibid., § 615) and Syria (ibid., § 619).

[5] See, e.g., the practice of France (ibid., § 585), Indonesia (ibid., § 589), Israel (ibid., § 590), Kenya (ibid., § 593), United Kingdom (ibid., § 603) and United States (ibid., §§ 604–606).

[6] UN General Assembly, Res. 2676 (XXV), 9 December 1970, preamble and § 5.

[7] Cairo Declaration, Sections 68–69, and Cairo Plan of Action, Section 82, both adopted at the Africa-Europe Summit held under the Aegis of the Organization of African Unity and the European Union, 3–4 April 2000.

[8] Geneva Conventions, common Article 3.

[9] Additional Protocol II, Article 1(1) (adopted by 58 votes in favour, 5 against and 29 abstentions) (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 1, § 633).

[10] Additional Protocol II, Article 4(1) (adopted by consensus).

[11] Additional Protocol II, Article 13(3) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 756).

[12] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(e)(i).

[13] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(e)(ix).

[14] First Geneva Convention, Article 25 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 7, § 7).

[15] Germany, Military Manual (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 1, § 587).

[16] United States, Naval Handbook (ibid., § 605).

[17] See Third Geneva Convention, Article 4(A)(4).

[18] This conclusion is based on discussions during the second consultation with academic and governmental experts in the framework of this study in May 1999 and the general agreement among the experts to this effect. The experts also considered that it may be necessary to consider the legislation of a State in determining when reservists actually become members of the armed forces

End Quote.

And mind you all that combatants may be forcefully ejected from the territory of the controlling party.

In the case of stateless persons no provisions are made within the Geneva Conventions as to repatriation.

 

[montelatici]

As always, the invading European colonists blame the native people for the violence. It is one the worst cases of cognitive dissonance ever.

 

[montelatici]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are? You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015

Yikes

Although I did enjoy you shooting yourself in the foot again.

I wonder if you bother reading what you cut and paste. Or if you just hope no one else does.


Quote

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.
End Quote

Looks to me by your own admission Israel is obligated to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Exactly as I've been saying all along.

One is a protected person, the other is not.

The UN also spells out in its own operating guidelines, processes by which combatants are segregated from refugees. But that might be a little complex for you Monty

The Geneva Conventions specifically outlines two very different permissible treatments for persons considered protected ( either refugees or civilians ) and those considered combatants.

The more you are shown to be a fool, the more you cut and paste. However, it is clear who the High Contracting Parties determined were the protected persons in the 2014 declaration. They were the people of Gaza. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. LOL

 

[Phoenall]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your assertions are? You don't seem to understand that the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor do you have any clue that the High Contracting Parties as recently as December of 2014 produced a 10 point addendum that specifically relegate your assertions to the nonsense they represent.

"Declaration of 17 December 2014 adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

1. This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 17 December 2014, mindful of the recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 64/10 of 1 December 2009.

2. The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the statement of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 15 July 1999 and the Declaration of 5 December 2001.

3. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to fully respect the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, must respect, at all times, inter alia, (1) the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; (2) the principle of proportionality; and (3) the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects. In addition, the participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that no violation of international humanitarian law by any party to a conflict can relieve the other party from its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

4. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize the continued applicability and relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for in all circumstances. As such, they call on the occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. They also remind the occupying Power of its obligation to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory in a way which fully takes into account the needs of the civilian population while safeguarding its own security, and notably preserve its demographic characteristics.

5. The participating High Contracting Parties recall the primary obligation of the occupying Power to ensure adequate supplies of the population of the occupied territory and that whenever it is not in a position to do so, it is under the obligation to allow and facilitate relief schemes. In that case, they further recall that all High Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and shall guarantee its protection. In this regard, the participating High Contracting Parties reiterate their support to the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, within its particular role conferred upon it by the Geneva Conventions, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and of other impartial humanitarian organizations, to assess and alleviate the humanitarian situation in the field. Beyond, all parties to the conflict, and as such also non-State actors, should make all possible efforts to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for the population of the occupied territory.

6. The participating High Contracting Parties emphasize that all serious violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and that all those responsible should be brought to justice.

7. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about recurring violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, and as such also by non-State actors, including in the context of military operations and attacks directed against and emanating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the Conference of High Contracting Parties on 5 December 2001 and the resulting great suffering of the civilian population. They are particularly concerned about the number of victims among the civilian population in densely populated areas.

8. The participating High Contracting Parties express their deep concern about the impact of the continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They recall that, according to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, at least insofar as it deviates from the Green Line, and its associated regime, are contrary to international humanitarian law. They equally express their deep concern, from an international humanitarian law standpoint, about certain measures taken by the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the closure of the Gaza Strip. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territory and of the expansion thereof and of related unlawful seizure of property as well as of the transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying Power.

9. With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-State actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

10. The participating High Contracting Parties reiterate the need to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, and stress that respect for and implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law in general is essential to achieve a just and lasting peace."

A/69/711-S/2015/1 of 9 January 2015

Did Palestine sign this document, because if they did they should be dragged before the Hague for their breaches of it before the ink was dry.


Read article 9 that sums it up very clearly, and was aimed directly at the palestinians

 

[Phoenall]

As always, the invading European colonists blame the native people for the violence. It is one the worst cases of cognitive dissonance ever.

Is that why you are hated so much, because you are an invading European colonist that has no legal rights to the property you paid for.