cnm, et al,
Yes, well we have to discuss this. I do believe that there is room for litigation and compensation as a "civil land claim" under the "original" limitation setup by the international community.
Israelis steal land and run apartheid style regimes
in the occupied territories.
(COMMENT)
Relative to Land Thief:
Settlements under the Oslo Accords that are in dispute are subject to the resolution process under:
ARTICLE XXI - Chapter III Legal Affairs - Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip (AKA: Oslo II) said:
Settlement of Differences and Disputes
Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of
Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee. SOURCE:
OSLO II ACCORD
The OSLO II Accord is the instrument used to establish Areas "A" "B" and "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.
The Israeli military government shall retain the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council --- encompasses the Gaza Strip territory and West Bank territory, --- except for Area C which, subject to the permanent status negotiations.
The occupation could have been resolved well before the turn of the century had the Palestinians worked harder at maintaining the tempo of the agreements.
Apartheid is an
Article 7 (Para 1j) - Crime Against Humanity covered under Part 2 of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute. It is defined as:
"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
There are seven
"Elements to the Offense of "Apartheid" under International Law. Missing even on element, and you don't have the crime.
1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts. (It is understood that “character” refers to the nature and gravity of the act.)
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
We could write an entire book on this subject, so let's just pick a couple; and if you have a question about the others, we'll address them separately.
- ELEMENT #4: The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
This is not at all true in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why? Because there are Israelis that are Palestinian that do not come under the more restrictive rules of the belligerent population of the occupied Palestinian territories.
While there are cases in which the belligerent population may seem to interpret containment and quarantine measures against hostile action, terrorism and insurgent activities as exercising authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner; it is a result of a gradual escalation of security countermeasures over nearly a half century of attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) that included (but not limited to):
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
The Israelis do not actually the exercise of control or influence over every HoAP on a daily level. While the HoAP may run into security obstacles or barriers, the Israelis are not entering each and every one's home and dominating and dictating their activities unless it has some security issue driving it.
- ELEMENT #5: The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
This is not about maintaining the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). It is about maintaining the safety, integrity and security of the State of Israel against a known threat by the Palestinian people against its sovereignty. And taking such action to protect and defense the state of the people of Israel from the unlawful activities of the HoAP is not "apartheid." It is the defensive measures that every nation takes against a hostile element that has declared "Jihad" against it.
Article 51: UN Charter ---- Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.
The intent of ELEMENT #5 is to prohibit an despotic regime using racial segregation domestically to maintain a supremacist government. Israel is doing no such thing. It is defending itself against "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
- ELEMENT #6: The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
The is no Israeli policy or program for the conduct of a "widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian Palestinian population. There are policies, programs and plans to retaliate against HoAP activities outline in Element #4, supra. There are very few nations in the world that do not have such contingencies in place. On the contrary, there is a country that does have a program of conducting prohibited indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I. The State of Palestine's Unity Government openly admits that it has a policy of “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” [
Article 8 - War Crimes 2b(i)] constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. Israel does not.
I hope this answered your questions.
Most Respectfully,
R
