Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior

[theliq]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967,

If there was no Palestinian territory before 1967, how could Israel occupy any Palestinian territory after 1967?

Ask the International Court of Justice.

toastedparrot is a Meir Kahane disciple. Don't waste your time.

.

Kahane Chai, y'all!

​

ANOTHER IDIOTIC POST......

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, --- again you are trying to imply something that is not actually true.

The ICJ's Wall decision states:

Article 49(6) of the Fourth Hague Convention “prohibits not only deportations and forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying power to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory”.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

(COMMENT)

The ICJ Wall Decision is an ADVISORY OPINION and not a formal ruling. The ICJ and the ICC are two different International Court Systems.


ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

1. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
2. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
3. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
4. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
5. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
6. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The ICJ is a court that is politically corrupted. No one expected the ICJ to say anything in favor of the Israelis. This is what we call the "color of law" or more probably "malfeasance." In fact this is a great example.

LOOK AT WHAT Article 49(6) actually says, and not what the ICJ politically dressed it to imply.

Under the criminal code, which I cited, there is a very distinct definition which I gave.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Well of course any court whose decisions do not coincide with your extraordinary leaps of logic with respect to Israel's malfeasance must be corrupt.

Now to the point. Even in Article 49(6), uses both the words "deport" and "transfer" of its own population are used. The former addresses direct action by the Occupying Power and the latter addresses the simple movement of the Occupying Power's population (with the passive acquiescence) of the Occupying Power. Therefore it is not necessary that the Occupying Power actually organizes and moves population en masse (compared to individual transfers in 49.1). Art. 49(6) does not require the transfer of civilians to be forcible.

The war crime in Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) even more clearly does not require “actually organizing and moving population en masse,” because it prohibits both direct and indirect transfer. Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) thus prohibits a much broader range of actions than Art. 46(1). And, of course, a violation of Art. 8(2)(b)(viii), unlike a violation of Art. 49(6), gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.

For reference purposes, see below:

Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

So, please stop making a fool of yourself, I have forgotten more than you will learn about international law, Rocco.

 

[Roudy]

Yawn. Two weeks until the plans for the American flag to be raised from the US embassy in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem, are put in place. Enjoy yourselves all that you want.

 

[montelatici]

Not going to happen.

 

[Roudy]

We shall see. Order your suicide vest now.

 

[Ringel05]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

Never realized you were Blind, Ringel

I did figure out you were anti Semitic though. Tell me, do you shave your head?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah, I love you know it alls.

Well of course any court whose decisions do not coincide with your extraordinary leaps of logic with respect to Israel's malfeasance must be corrupt.

Now to the point. Even in Article 49(6), uses both the words "deport" and "transfer" of its own population are used. The former addresses direct action by the Occupying Power and the latter addresses the simple movement of the Occupying Power's population (with the passive acquiescence) of the Occupying Power. Therefore it is not necessary that the Occupying Power actually organizes and moves population en masse (compared to individual transfers in 49.1). Art. 49(6) does not require the transfer of civilians to be forcible.

The war crime in Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) even more clearly does not require “actually organizing and moving population en masse,” because it prohibits both direct and indirect transfer. Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) thus prohibits a much broader range of actions than Art. 46(1). And, of course, a violation of Art. 8(2)(b)(viii), unlike a violation of Art. 49(6), gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.

For reference purposes, see below:

Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

So, please stop making a fool of yourself, I have forgotten more than you will learn about international law, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

I think I have given you the link to all these citations several time. In fact, in the last Posting, I directly copied information from several of these links.

The question remains, do you understand what the terminology actually means? I think not.

Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1
War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer
Elements of the Offense:

1. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
​

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
Elements of the Offense:
1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,44 directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

[/indent]

NOW!
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.

It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.
​

The transferred portions differ between Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 and Article 8 (2) (b) (viii) which has these three compelling components.

• Their own population

Yes, the Israeli settlers meet this criteria.​

• To occupied territory

NO! Area "C" is a heretofore undefined Area under the full control of Israel. This includes security, planning and construction in accordance with the Oslo Accords.​

• For political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.

NO!
While nothing a country does is without political baggage, it certainly is not racial. Israels population composition is much more diverse that either the West Ban or Gaza Strip.

Ethnic Groups

Jewish 74.8% (of which Israel-born 75.6%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 16.6%, Africa-born 4.9%, Asia-born 2.9%), non-Jewish 25.2% (mostly Arab) (2015 est.)​

Religious Groups:

Jewish 74.8%, Muslim 17.6%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 4% (2015 est.)​

It is not easy to articulate the logic, beyond that of "defensible borders." The Advisory treats the original Armistice Line as Sacrosanct. If it is not a border by default, then the status of the West Bank and many arguments put forth by the Arab Palestinians falls apart:
SOURCE: Frontpage
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: NOT JUST LEGAL, BUT NECESSARY
Refuting the leftist propaganda.
July 11, 2012 by Steven Plaut

• It is in Israel’s acute national interest to prevent the West Bank from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel. Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a “Palestinian State,” basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.

• Every accord or “deal” that provides for any sort of “Palestinian” state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass terrorist aggression from “Palestine,” making life in Israel impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord or treaty.

• Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against terrorist aggression from this “Palestine” by international pressures and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against Israeli “aggression” in all such cases.

• The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the second Hamastan, and prevents endlessly appeasing and cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures. (Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements.) Since most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their presence there also prevents any capitulations by Israel to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.

• While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of “settlements” is to prevent the emergence of any “Palestinian state.” No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no other effective alternative ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into Hamastan.
​

It is my opinion that you just cannot read the Criminal Code and Statutes and think you understand what it says and what it means. In the case of Article 49(6) is so different from the other five clauses, as to be almost undefined. The ICJ Advisory also considered the Article VII Defense as completely out of the questing; as was the past history of criminal and terrorist behavior.

In any event, the highest law here is essential that --- Israel and Arab Palestine --- settle their territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers by peaceful means. The ICJ Advisory did not take into account the change in sovereignty when, while under Israeli effective control the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank. This effectively left the West Bank without a government, except for the Israelis.

Yes, I'm beginning to think that much of the International Laws that are often cited will not apply to the dispute. The Fourth Geneva Convention became effective in 1950, and None of the issues prior to mid-2002 actually fall under the Rome Statutes (21st Century Law). So the law you cite did not exist for the complaints at hand. Certainly NOT BEFORE 21 October 1950. The Article 49 did not exist at the time of the Nakba (≈December 1947 to January 1949)..

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah, I love you know it alls.

Well of course any court whose decisions do not coincide with your extraordinary leaps of logic with respect to Israel's malfeasance must be corrupt.

Now to the point. Even in Article 49(6), uses both the words "deport" and "transfer" of its own population are used. The former addresses direct action by the Occupying Power and the latter addresses the simple movement of the Occupying Power's population (with the passive acquiescence) of the Occupying Power. Therefore it is not necessary that the Occupying Power actually organizes and moves population en masse (compared to individual transfers in 49.1). Art. 49(6) does not require the transfer of civilians to be forcible.

The war crime in Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) even more clearly does not require “actually organizing and moving population en masse,” because it prohibits both direct and indirect transfer. Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) thus prohibits a much broader range of actions than Art. 46(1). And, of course, a violation of Art. 8(2)(b)(viii), unlike a violation of Art. 49(6), gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.

For reference purposes, see below:

Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

So, please stop making a fool of yourself, I have forgotten more than you will learn about international law, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

I think I have given you the link to all these citations several time. In fact, in the last Posting, I directly copied information from several of these links.

The question remains, do you understand what the terminology actually means? I think not.

Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1
War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer
Elements of the Offense:

1. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
​

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
Elements of the Offense:
1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,44 directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

[/indent]

NOW!
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.

It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.
​

The transferred portions differ between Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 and Article 8 (2) (b) (viii) which has these three compelling components.

• Their own population

Yes, the Israeli settlers meet this criteria.​

• To occupied territory

NO! Area "C" is a heretofore undefined Area under the full control of Israel. This includes security, planning and construction in accordance with the Oslo Accords.​

• For political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.

NO!
While nothing a country does is without political baggage, it certainly is not racial. Israels population composition is much more diverse that either the West Ban or Gaza Strip.

Ethnic Groups

Jewish 74.8% (of which Israel-born 75.6%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 16.6%, Africa-born 4.9%, Asia-born 2.9%), non-Jewish 25.2% (mostly Arab) (2015 est.)​

Religious Groups:

Jewish 74.8%, Muslim 17.6%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 4% (2015 est.)​

It is not easy to articulate the logic, beyond that of "defensible borders." The Advisory treats the original Armistice Line as Sacrosanct. If it is not a border by default, then the status of the West Bank and many arguments put forth by the Arab Palestinians falls apart:
SOURCE: Frontpage
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: NOT JUST LEGAL, BUT NECESSARY
Refuting the leftist propaganda.
July 11, 2012 by Steven Plaut

• It is in Israel’s acute national interest to prevent the West Bank from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel. Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a “Palestinian State,” basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.

• Every accord or “deal” that provides for any sort of “Palestinian” state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass terrorist aggression from “Palestine,” making life in Israel impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord or treaty.

• Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against terrorist aggression from this “Palestine” by international pressures and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against Israeli “aggression” in all such cases.

• The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the second Hamastan, and prevents endlessly appeasing and cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures. (Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements.) Since most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their presence there also prevents any capitulations by Israel to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.

• While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of “settlements” is to prevent the emergence of any “Palestinian state.” No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no other effective alternative ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into Hamastan.
​

It is my opinion that you just cannot read the Criminal Code and Statutes and think you understand what it says and what it means. In the case of Article 49(6) is so different from the other five clauses, as to be almost undefined. The ICJ Advisory also considered the Article VII Defense as completely out of the questing; as was the past history of criminal and terrorist behavior.

In any event, the highest law here is essential that --- Israel and Arab Palestine --- settle their territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers by peaceful means. The ICJ Advisory did not take into account the change in sovereignty when, while under Israeli effective control the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank. This effectively left the West Bank without a government, except for the Israelis.

Yes, I'm beginning to think that much of the International Laws that are often cited will not apply to the dispute. The Fourth Geneva Convention became effective in 1950, and None of the issues prior to mid-2002 actually fall under the Rome Statutes (21st Century Law). So the law you cite did not exist for the complaints at hand. Certainly NOT BEFORE 21 October 1950. The Article 49 did not exist at the time of the Nakba (≈December 1947 to January 1949)..

Most Respectfully,
R​

Posting a Zionist propaganda piece doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Since all international organizations, courts and the UNSC have spoken on the matter, there is no doubt that the settlements are illegal, regardless of why they are being built.

However, just to make it clear that since 1967 (well after 1948), the Israeli Government has openly led and directly participated in the planning, construction, development, consolidation and/or encouragement of settlements by including explicit provisions in policy statements,and establishing governmental structures and implementing specific measures.

The Israeli Government has directly built infrastructure, has encouraged Jewish migrants to Israel to move to settlements; has sponsored economic activities; has supported settlements through public services delivery and development projects; and has seized Palestinian public and privately owned land to build the settlements on and has seized Palestinian land for “military needs” to defend the settlements.

So, the Israeli building of the settlements is illegal under the Geneva Convention IV Article 49 alone. The additional protocol and the ICC statute reinforce the illegality, but are not needed.

And then there is the recent UNSC Resolution 2334 which makes it painfully clear to bullshitters like you:

"1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law....."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah, I love you know it alls.

Well of course any court whose decisions do not coincide with your extraordinary leaps of logic with respect to Israel's malfeasance must be corrupt.

Now to the point. Even in Article 49(6), uses both the words "deport" and "transfer" of its own population are used. The former addresses direct action by the Occupying Power and the latter addresses the simple movement of the Occupying Power's population (with the passive acquiescence) of the Occupying Power. Therefore it is not necessary that the Occupying Power actually organizes and moves population en masse (compared to individual transfers in 49.1). Art. 49(6) does not require the transfer of civilians to be forcible.

The war crime in Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) even more clearly does not require “actually organizing and moving population en masse,” because it prohibits both direct and indirect transfer. Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) thus prohibits a much broader range of actions than Art. 46(1). And, of course, a violation of Art. 8(2)(b)(viii), unlike a violation of Art. 49(6), gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.

For reference purposes, see below:

Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

So, please stop making a fool of yourself, I have forgotten more than you will learn about international law, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

I think I have given you the link to all these citations several time. In fact, in the last Posting, I directly copied information from several of these links.

The question remains, do you understand what the terminology actually means? I think not.

Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1
War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer
Elements of the Offense:

1. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
​

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
Elements of the Offense:
1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,44 directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

[/indent]

NOW!
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.

It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.
​

The transferred portions differ between Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 and Article 8 (2) (b) (viii) which has these three compelling components.

• Their own population

Yes, the Israeli settlers meet this criteria.​

• To occupied territory

NO! Area "C" is a heretofore undefined Area under the full control of Israel. This includes security, planning and construction in accordance with the Oslo Accords.​

• For political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.

NO!
While nothing a country does is without political baggage, it certainly is not racial. Israels population composition is much more diverse that either the West Ban or Gaza Strip.

Ethnic Groups

Jewish 74.8% (of which Israel-born 75.6%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 16.6%, Africa-born 4.9%, Asia-born 2.9%), non-Jewish 25.2% (mostly Arab) (2015 est.)​

Religious Groups:

Jewish 74.8%, Muslim 17.6%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 4% (2015 est.)​

It is not easy to articulate the logic, beyond that of "defensible borders." The Advisory treats the original Armistice Line as Sacrosanct. If it is not a border by default, then the status of the West Bank and many arguments put forth by the Arab Palestinians falls apart:
SOURCE: Frontpage
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: NOT JUST LEGAL, BUT NECESSARY
Refuting the leftist propaganda.
July 11, 2012 by Steven Plaut

• It is in Israel’s acute national interest to prevent the West Bank from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel. Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a “Palestinian State,” basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.

• Every accord or “deal” that provides for any sort of “Palestinian” state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass terrorist aggression from “Palestine,” making life in Israel impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord or treaty.

• Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against terrorist aggression from this “Palestine” by international pressures and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against Israeli “aggression” in all such cases.

• The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the second Hamastan, and prevents endlessly appeasing and cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures. (Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements.) Since most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their presence there also prevents any capitulations by Israel to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.

• While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of “settlements” is to prevent the emergence of any “Palestinian state.” No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no other effective alternative ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into Hamastan.
​

It is my opinion that you just cannot read the Criminal Code and Statutes and think you understand what it says and what it means. In the case of Article 49(6) is so different from the other five clauses, as to be almost undefined. The ICJ Advisory also considered the Article VII Defense as completely out of the questing; as was the past history of criminal and terrorist behavior.

In any event, the highest law here is essential that --- Israel and Arab Palestine --- settle their territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers by peaceful means. The ICJ Advisory did not take into account the change in sovereignty when, while under Israeli effective control the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank. This effectively left the West Bank without a government, except for the Israelis.

Yes, I'm beginning to think that much of the International Laws that are often cited will not apply to the dispute. The Fourth Geneva Convention became effective in 1950, and None of the issues prior to mid-2002 actually fall under the Rome Statutes (21st Century Law). So the law you cite did not exist for the complaints at hand. Certainly NOT BEFORE 21 October 1950. The Article 49 did not exist at the time of the Nakba (≈December 1947 to January 1949)..

Most Respectfully,
R​

Posting a Zionist propaganda piece doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Since all international organizations, courts and the UNSC have spoken on the matter, there is no doubt that the settlements are illegal, regardless of why they are being built.

However, just to make it clear that since 1967 (well after 1948), the Israeli Government has openly led and directly participated in the planning, construction, development, consolidation and/or encouragement of settlements by including explicit provisions in policy statements,and establishing governmental structures and implementing specific measures.

The Israeli Government has directly built infrastructure, has encouraged Jewish migrants to Israel to move to settlements; has sponsored economic activities; has supported settlements through public services delivery and development projects; and has seized Palestinian public and privately owned land to build the settlements on and has seized Palestinian land for “military needs” to defend the settlements.

So, the Israeli building of the settlements is illegal under the Geneva Convention IV Article 49 alone. The additional protocol and the ICC statute reinforce the illegality, but are not needed.

And then there is the recent UNSC Resolution 2334 which makes it painfully clear to bullshitters like you:

"1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law....."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334.pdf

establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967

Imaginary Palestinian territory that didn't exist before 1967.

 

[montelatici]

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD. In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British. And guess who over 97% of the inhabitants were.

"...To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD. In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British. And guess who over 97% of the inhabitants were.

"...To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD.

Cool. You have any pictures of Palestinian coins and bills from 1966?
How about a list of Palestinian government officials in 1966?

In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British.

The territory was held by the British in 1966?

 

[RoccoR]

Toddsterpatriot, et al,

Yeah, it is strange.

establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967​

Imaginary Palestinian territory that didn't exist before 1967.

(COMMENT)

There wasn't a Palestine afterwards either.

V/R
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Toddsterpatriot, et al,

Yeah, it is strange.

establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967​

Imaginary Palestinian territory that didn't exist before 1967.

(COMMENT)

There wasn't a Palestine afterwards either.

V/R
R

More Israeli talking points.

 

[montelatici]

Palestinian coin 100 AD.

 

[montelatici]

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD. In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British. And guess who over 97% of the inhabitants were.

"...To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD.

Cool. You have any pictures of Palestinian coins and bills from 1966?
How about a list of Palestinian government officials in 1966?

In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British.

The territory was held by the British in 1966?

The land is under Jew occupation, so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency. Like in parts of Nazi occupied Europe where the Germans issued currency.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestinian coin 100 AD.

Nice try. I need to see one from 1966.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD. In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British. And guess who over 97% of the inhabitants were.

"...To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD.

Cool. You have any pictures of Palestinian coins and bills from 1966?
How about a list of Palestinian government officials in 1966?

In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British.

The territory was held by the British in 1966?

The land is under Jew occupation, so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency. Like in parts of Nazi occupied Europe where the Germans issued currency.

The land is under Jew occupation,

Who'd they take it from?

so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency.

In 1966? LOL!
You find that list of Palestinian government officials from 1966?

 

[montelatici]

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD. In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British. And guess who over 97% of the inhabitants were.

"...To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD.

Cool. You have any pictures of Palestinian coins and bills from 1966?
How about a list of Palestinian government officials in 1966?

In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British.

The territory was held by the British in 1966?

The land is under Jew occupation, so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency. Like in parts of Nazi occupied Europe where the Germans issued currency.

The land is under Jew occupation,

Who'd they take it from?

so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency.

In 1966? LOL!
You find that list of Palestinian government officials from 1966?

The inhabitants.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD. In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British. And guess who over 97% of the inhabitants were.

"...To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Palestine has existed since about 100 AD.

Cool. You have any pictures of Palestinian coins and bills from 1966?
How about a list of Palestinian government officials in 1966?

In 1922, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, a mandate pursuant to Article 22, to hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants was issued to the British.

The territory was held by the British in 1966?

The land is under Jew occupation, so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency. Like in parts of Nazi occupied Europe where the Germans issued currency.

The land is under Jew occupation,

Who'd they take it from?

so the Israelis are responsible for issuing currency.

In 1966? LOL!
You find that list of Palestinian government officials from 1966?

The inhabitants.

LOL!
You have any images of currency that they used?