"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Interesting...

Treaties and agreements are not illegal, per se. But if an agreement violates the rights of people the short answer is that it is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

• What particular "Rights of the People" were violated?
• What is the source of these "Rights."

(COMMENT)

So it is your contention that no matter what form of agreement, treaty, or accord takes, if Israel had effective control over the West Bank, any agreement, treaty, or accord is invalid and unlawful.

Most Respectfully,
R

• What particular "Rights of the People" were violated?
• What is the source of these "Rights."

Where ya been?

 

[Spare_change]

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

Well, except the one we set up in Central Park ... or the one on the White House lawn ... or the one I'm going to set up in your backyard. Me and some the homeless guys need a new place to hang out.

Your conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

Yes... It would help if you knew what that meant.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

[(COMMENT)

• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.
​

"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;" Article 7(2d), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

(QUESTION)

What Israeli Citizens in the West Bank are you claiming meet this criteria?

Most Respectfully
R

What Israeli Citizens in the West Bank are you claiming meet this criteria?

That criteria does not apply to Israeli citizens in the occupied territory as they are the occupiers.
The definition that you promote here defines "Crimes against humanity" as it relates to the jurisdiction of the ICC. The intent of the provisions is to protect the human rights of the occupied from their occupiers. The key phrase from that definition is "from the area in which they are lawfully present". It is clearly a statute designed to protect the human rights of the occupied from the occupier by preventing the occupier from forcibly removing the occupied from their land.

Juxtapose this with the Geneva Conventions and clearly we can see the intent of 49(6)

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

is to prevent the transfer of the civilian population of the occupier into the occupied territory and there are no caveats to the provision.

The distinction between occupied and occupier when discussing the transfer of people is further explained in the commentary to 49(6), which I have already posted several times at your request and will now highlight for your benefit yet again.

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.

Don't take my word for it, the ICJ has already weighed in on Israel's flagrant violations of international law.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:
"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979)i.

The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what your background is but I'm thinking that you sir should know better than to be making the argument that you are making.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another generalized complaint, "violates virtually all of the rules."

That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.

(REFERENCE)

• Art. 42 HR 1907: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

•Art. 43 HR 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• Excerpt Art 68 GCIV: Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. ...

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

(COMMENT)

The continuation, expansion, and strictness of the (contentious) occupation is owed largely to the making by the Arab Palestinians.

You talk about how Israel "violates virtually all of the rules" --- does not compare at all to the blatant and open disregard for life the Palestinians have demonstrated over the last half century, clearly describes the type and kind of people the Arab Palestinian of the territories occupied since 1967 truly are.

Starting with the 1967 assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, which killed Robert F. Kennendy in Los Angeles, California, we find that scope and nature of the threats presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).

The HoAP don't attack and kill unarmed civilians incidental to the targeting of legitimate military targets (which in itself is a violation of Article 68, GCIV); but specifically target non-military locations with the specific intent of killing unarmed women and children. Whether that be: (I'll try to pick a representative sample coving the spectrum of attacks.)

• PLO Fedayeen ambushing a bus of American Pilgrims to the Holy Land.
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) launching rockets at the American Embassy, and the JFK Library in Beirut.
• Members of Black September/Fatah openly attacking an Olympic Team in Munich.
• Fatah planting a bomb onboard TWA Flight 841, from Athens, killing all passengers.
• An open area bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem; in which Fatah claimed responsibility.
• The PFLP launched an attack in the Istanbul terminal at the El Al counter.
• PLO terrorists open fire on a Tel Aviv recreational beach killing dozens, including Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff.
• PLO attack on worshippers walking home from a synagogue in Hebron, including an American.
• A PLO stabbing attack in a Hebron marketplace.
• PFLP took control (piracy) of the MS Achille Lauro, sailing from Alexandria, Egypt, to Israel; killing a disabled American and throwing the body over-board.
• A member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim.
• A HAMAS suicide bomber detonated on a commuter bus in Jerusalem.
• A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York.

This is not to mention the HoAP using cars to rundown people in the market place, or running loose on the street stabbing just anyone. Nor did I take into account the over 14000 rockets indiscriminately launched since the turn of the century; into Israel. Nor does this take into account the incitement to violence, and the HoAP taking the position that:

Each and every one of these types of SALW attacks, suicide bombings, hi-jackings, kidnappings and murders violated either a treaty/charter specific prohibition, an Customary and International Humanitarian Law, or binding resolution.

In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps, a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S. - See more at: Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel’s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide — And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. | The Geller Report

Three weeks ago, a sports festival organized by Fatah and the PLO provided an opportunity to "renew our commitment and loyalty to the blood of the Martyrs," as PLO representative Abu Zaid said (cited by PMW) in specific reference to two terrorists who murdered 46 Israelis between them. Source:
Palestinian Incitement to Violence Continues Unabated
​

“In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

• It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

• It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

• It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

• It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.”

This is subjective, but you can see a clear set of similarities between the Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, rebels and revolutionaries of the asymmetric, low intensity conflict exemplified by the HoAP.

The HoAP represent a threat to both regional and international peace and security. The mitigation technique is the application of containment procedures. And as long as the State of Palestine presents these types of threats, the greater the Israelis will ratchet down the countermeasures. The HoAP don't just represent a threat to the US and Israel, but they represent a destabilizing threat to each of the adjacent Arab League countries that have evolved in the last half century.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another generalized complaint, "violates virtually all of the rules."

That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.

(REFERENCE)

• Art. 42 HR 1907: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

•Art. 43 HR 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• Excerpt Art 68 GCIV: Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. ...

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

(COMMENT)

The continuation, expansion, and strictness of the (contentious) occupation is owed largely to the making by the Arab Palestinians.

You talk about how Israel "violates virtually all of the rules" --- does not compare at all to the blatant and open disregard for life the Palestinians have demonstrated over the last half century, clearly describes the type and kind of people the Arab Palestinian of the territories occupied since 1967 truly are.

Starting with the 1967 assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, which killed Robert F. Kennendy in Los Angeles, California, we find that scope and nature of the threats presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).

The HoAP don't attack and kill unarmed civilians incidental to the targeting of legitimate military targets (which in itself is a violation of Article 68, GCIV); but specifically target non-military locations with the specific intent of killing unarmed women and children. Whether that be: (I'll try to pick a representative sample coving the spectrum of attacks.)

• PLO Fedayeen ambushing a bus of American Pilgrims to the Holy Land.
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) launching rockets at the American Embassy, and the JFK Library in Beirut.
• Members of Black September/Fatah openly attacking an Olympic Team in Munich.
• Fatah planting a bomb onboard TWA Flight 841, from Athens, killing all passengers.
• An open area bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem; in which Fatah claimed responsibility.
• The PFLP launched an attack in the Istanbul terminal at the El Al counter.
• PLO terrorists open fire on a Tel Aviv recreational beach killing dozens, including Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff.
• PLO attack on worshippers walking home from a synagogue in Hebron, including an American.
• A PLO stabbing attack in a Hebron marketplace.
• PFLP took control (piracy) of the MS Achille Lauro, sailing from Alexandria, Egypt, to Israel; killing a disabled American and throwing the body over-board.
• A member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim.
• A HAMAS suicide bomber detonated on a commuter bus in Jerusalem.
• A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York.

This is not to mention the HoAP using cars to rundown people in the market place, or running loose on the street stabbing just anyone. Nor did I take into account the over 14000 rockets indiscriminately launched since the turn of the century; into Israel. Nor does this take into account the incitement to violence, and the HoAP taking the position that:

Each and every one of these types of SALW attacks, suicide bombings, hi-jackings, kidnappings and murders violated either a treaty/charter specific prohibition, an Customary and International Humanitarian Law, or binding resolution.

In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps, a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S. - See more at: Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel’s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide — And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. | The Geller Report

Three weeks ago, a sports festival organized by Fatah and the PLO provided an opportunity to "renew our commitment and loyalty to the blood of the Martyrs," as PLO representative Abu Zaid said (cited by PMW) in specific reference to two terrorists who murdered 46 Israelis between them. Source:
Palestinian Incitement to Violence Continues Unabated
​

“In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

• It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

• It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

• It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

• It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.”

This is subjective, but you can see a clear set of similarities between the Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, rebels and revolutionaries of the asymmetric, low intensity conflict exemplified by the HoAP.

The HoAP represent a threat to both regional and international peace and security. The mitigation technique is the application of containment procedures. And as long as the State of Palestine presents these types of threats, the greater the Israelis will ratchet down the countermeasures. The HoAP don't just represent a threat to the US and Israel, but they represent a destabilizing threat to each of the adjacent Arab League countries that have evolved in the last half century.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The response of the Palestinians, armed and unarmed, to Israel violations is what the liars call terrorism. They are responses to Israel's violations.

3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.
  
  
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
  
  
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

ICRC service

The purpose of Israel's occupation is not to ensure public order and safety. It is a means to further its hundred year old settler colonial project.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another generalized complaint, "violates virtually all of the rules."

That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.

(REFERENCE)

• Art. 42 HR 1907: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

•Art. 43 HR 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• Excerpt Art 68 GCIV: Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. ...

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

(COMMENT)

The continuation, expansion, and strictness of the (contentious) occupation is owed largely to the making by the Arab Palestinians.

You talk about how Israel "violates virtually all of the rules" --- does not compare at all to the blatant and open disregard for life the Palestinians have demonstrated over the last half century, clearly describes the type and kind of people the Arab Palestinian of the territories occupied since 1967 truly are.

Starting with the 1967 assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, which killed Robert F. Kennendy in Los Angeles, California, we find that scope and nature of the threats presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).

The HoAP don't attack and kill unarmed civilians incidental to the targeting of legitimate military targets (which in itself is a violation of Article 68, GCIV); but specifically target non-military locations with the specific intent of killing unarmed women and children. Whether that be: (I'll try to pick a representative sample coving the spectrum of attacks.)

• PLO Fedayeen ambushing a bus of American Pilgrims to the Holy Land.
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) launching rockets at the American Embassy, and the JFK Library in Beirut.
• Members of Black September/Fatah openly attacking an Olympic Team in Munich.
• Fatah planting a bomb onboard TWA Flight 841, from Athens, killing all passengers.
• An open area bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem; in which Fatah claimed responsibility.
• The PFLP launched an attack in the Istanbul terminal at the El Al counter.
• PLO terrorists open fire on a Tel Aviv recreational beach killing dozens, including Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff.
• PLO attack on worshippers walking home from a synagogue in Hebron, including an American.
• A PLO stabbing attack in a Hebron marketplace.
• PFLP took control (piracy) of the MS Achille Lauro, sailing from Alexandria, Egypt, to Israel; killing a disabled American and throwing the body over-board.
• A member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim.
• A HAMAS suicide bomber detonated on a commuter bus in Jerusalem.
• A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York.

This is not to mention the HoAP using cars to rundown people in the market place, or running loose on the street stabbing just anyone. Nor did I take into account the over 14000 rockets indiscriminately launched since the turn of the century; into Israel. Nor does this take into account the incitement to violence, and the HoAP taking the position that:

Each and every one of these types of SALW attacks, suicide bombings, hi-jackings, kidnappings and murders violated either a treaty/charter specific prohibition, an Customary and International Humanitarian Law, or binding resolution.

In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps, a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S. - See more at: Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel’s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide — And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. | The Geller Report

Three weeks ago, a sports festival organized by Fatah and the PLO provided an opportunity to "renew our commitment and loyalty to the blood of the Martyrs," as PLO representative Abu Zaid said (cited by PMW) in specific reference to two terrorists who murdered 46 Israelis between them. Source:
Palestinian Incitement to Violence Continues Unabated
​

“In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

• It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

• It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

• It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

• It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.”

This is subjective, but you can see a clear set of similarities between the Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, rebels and revolutionaries of the asymmetric, low intensity conflict exemplified by the HoAP.

The HoAP represent a threat to both regional and international peace and security. The mitigation technique is the application of containment procedures. And as long as the State of Palestine presents these types of threats, the greater the Israelis will ratchet down the countermeasures. The HoAP don't just represent a threat to the US and Israel, but they represent a destabilizing threat to each of the adjacent Arab League countries that have evolved in the last half century.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The response of the Palestinians, armed and unarmed, to Israel violations is what the liars call terrorism. They are responses to Israel's violations.

3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.
  
  
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
  
  
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

ICRC service

"The purpose of Israel's occupation is not to ensure public order and safety. It is a means to further its hundred year old settler colonial project.

"The response of the Palestinians, armed and unarmed, to Israel violations is what the liars call terrorism. They are responses to Israel's violations."

I'm afraid yours are stereotypical excuses employed to justify islamic terrorism.

If you familiarize yourself with the Hamas Charter, you will note repeated references to islamist ideological (politico-religious), perspectives. You should take the time understand the islamist concept of waqf. That exact term appears in the Hamas Charter. All of this has been explained to you before so pleading ignorance is not an excuse. Insensate Jew hatred is a core component of islamist ideology, thus references in the Hamas Charter to the destruction of Israel.

It's a shame that you're reduced to mere slogans and pleas to ignorance as a means to justify islamic terrorism as a means to further Islamist ideology.

 

[Phoenall]

Tehon,, et al,

Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.

In Posting #14, I discussed what it was suppose to prevent.

Remember, we are talking about the use of force to effect the deportation or transfer, and NOT a case like the Israelis that moved into the Area "C" (fully Israeli Authority) Settlements.

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.

(COMMENT)

This is screwed-up here.

The Germans were attempting to transfer and deport Jews and other undesirables to "Extermination Camps." The Germans were not making arrests, round-ups, forced transport, and execution in a distant land for the purpose of "colonization."

• Wherever did you get that idea?
​

Separation ---- yes.

•∆• The INTENT was the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables (the political and racial component).
•∆• The RESULT was to cleanse the population and leave behind the contemporary interpretation of the Aryan Race; people of European and Western Asian heritage.
•∆• The exterminations would continue until all Germany could declare, going back three generations, their family was free of any undesirable heritage with "non-Aryans."
​

The Israeli Government DID NOT use "force" in the relocation of Jewish Citizens establishing settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

Another thing you forget is that Israel occupied Jordans territory from 1967 to 1988 until Jordan turned it loose and made it anyones land. The arab muslims that had migrated there illegally had no ownership of the land so the land became whoever could hold it. The Jews being the legal owners under INTERNATIONAL LAW became the legal land owners once Jordan withdrew all claims to the land.

Nothing you say here, even if it were true, alters Israel's responsibilities towards those whose land they occupy. The Geneva Convention's concerns are not with who owns the land, only with who lives on the land. People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6).

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.
ICRC service

BULLSHIT


The land was never arab muslim but Jewish. The arab muslims invaded in 1947 and evicted the Jews from their land and then passed laws to steal the title and make it theirs. In 1967 the arab muslims attacked again in the futile hope of stealing more Jewish land and were beaten back, losing what they had stolen in 1949. The Jews reclaimed what was rightfully theirs under International law. this was reflected in the Oslo accords that reinforced the Jews rights to that land.

You know that "right of return" that you Jew haters love to spew out, well this is an example of how it actually works, just the same as it works for you if a scumbag steals your car and you take it back. Does the scumbag have the right to claim you stole their property, or would he be arrested for theft if he went to the police ?

 

[Phoenall]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

OJ got away with murder, does that invalidate all laws prohibiting murder? Your argument is ridiculous, why do you show such callous disregard for human rights laws.

No it means that he hired a good Lawyer who got him off. That does not invalidate the laws, the next case might not be as easy to win. Where the mant thousands of blacks lynched by the US people not indicitive of the whole of the US being racist murderers using your criteria ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another generalized complaint, "violates virtually all of the rules."

That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.

(REFERENCE)

• Art. 42 HR 1907: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

•Art. 43 HR 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• Excerpt Art 68 GCIV: Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. ...

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

(COMMENT)

The continuation, expansion, and strictness of the (contentious) occupation is owed largely to the making by the Arab Palestinians.

You talk about how Israel "violates virtually all of the rules" --- does not compare at all to the blatant and open disregard for life the Palestinians have demonstrated over the last half century, clearly describes the type and kind of people the Arab Palestinian of the territories occupied since 1967 truly are.

Starting with the 1967 assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, which killed Robert F. Kennendy in Los Angeles, California, we find that scope and nature of the threats presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).

The HoAP don't attack and kill unarmed civilians incidental to the targeting of legitimate military targets (which in itself is a violation of Article 68, GCIV); but specifically target non-military locations with the specific intent of killing unarmed women and children. Whether that be: (I'll try to pick a representative sample coving the spectrum of attacks.)

• PLO Fedayeen ambushing a bus of American Pilgrims to the Holy Land.
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) launching rockets at the American Embassy, and the JFK Library in Beirut.
• Members of Black September/Fatah openly attacking an Olympic Team in Munich.
• Fatah planting a bomb onboard TWA Flight 841, from Athens, killing all passengers.
• An open area bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem; in which Fatah claimed responsibility.
• The PFLP launched an attack in the Istanbul terminal at the El Al counter.
• PLO terrorists open fire on a Tel Aviv recreational beach killing dozens, including Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff.
• PLO attack on worshippers walking home from a synagogue in Hebron, including an American.
• A PLO stabbing attack in a Hebron marketplace.
• PFLP took control (piracy) of the MS Achille Lauro, sailing from Alexandria, Egypt, to Israel; killing a disabled American and throwing the body over-board.
• A member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim.
• A HAMAS suicide bomber detonated on a commuter bus in Jerusalem.
• A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York.

This is not to mention the HoAP using cars to rundown people in the market place, or running loose on the street stabbing just anyone. Nor did I take into account the over 14000 rockets indiscriminately launched since the turn of the century; into Israel. Nor does this take into account the incitement to violence, and the HoAP taking the position that:

Each and every one of these types of SALW attacks, suicide bombings, hi-jackings, kidnappings and murders violated either a treaty/charter specific prohibition, an Customary and International Humanitarian Law, or binding resolution.

In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps, a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S. - See more at: Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel’s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide — And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. | The Geller Report

Three weeks ago, a sports festival organized by Fatah and the PLO provided an opportunity to "renew our commitment and loyalty to the blood of the Martyrs," as PLO representative Abu Zaid said (cited by PMW) in specific reference to two terrorists who murdered 46 Israelis between them. Source:
Palestinian Incitement to Violence Continues Unabated
​

“In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

• It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

• It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

• It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

• It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.”

This is subjective, but you can see a clear set of similarities between the Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, rebels and revolutionaries of the asymmetric, low intensity conflict exemplified by the HoAP.

The HoAP represent a threat to both regional and international peace and security. The mitigation technique is the application of containment procedures. And as long as the State of Palestine presents these types of threats, the greater the Israelis will ratchet down the countermeasures. The HoAP don't just represent a threat to the US and Israel, but they represent a destabilizing threat to each of the adjacent Arab League countries that have evolved in the last half century.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The response of the Palestinians, armed and unarmed, to Israel violations is what the liars call terrorism. They are responses to Israel's violations.

3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  
  
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  
  
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
  
  
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
  
  
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
  
  
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
  
  
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  
  
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  
  
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  
  
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
  
  
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
  
  
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
  
  
• Cultural property must be respected.
  
  
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
  
  
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

ICRC service

The purpose of Israel's occupation is not to ensure public order and safety. It is a means to further its hundred year old settler colonial project.

What violations are these then, itemise them so we can see what they developed from. No doubt we will see that it was attacks by arab muslims allied to one of the many known and proven terrorist groups operating in the area.




Now what time limit is placed by your link to the occupation

Agreed which Israel does in all cases, and applies Jordanian law as required

Hard to do when the occupied are using terrorism to kill innocents, so many are killed under Jordanian law

Which Israel does, but it does not mean they must provide for people shot in the act of a crime

Never happened

Never happened

None in evidence outside of your fantasy world

Unless and I will leave you to fill in the rest

Tell that to the arab muslims

Done so stop whining when they are found guilty

Which is a given


So what does your post bouil down to other than your usual islamonazi propaganda whinge

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well let's run through some of these.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

(COMMENT)

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document. Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression. In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee). This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement. While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

(COMMENT)

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections. And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights." In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance. Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE: Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).
​

The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:

Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state (example, the West Bank AUG 1988). The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as terra nullius. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.
​

it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control." It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference) has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.

Occupation is only a temporary situation,

and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

(COMMENT)

Who is arguing otherwise. It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities. The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement. However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988. The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988. During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power. The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP. For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues. I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues. In time of war, most social services suffer. It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

(COMMENT)

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP. News to me...

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

This has been discussed to death. Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase. The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that. The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

• (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact. In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small. if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small. However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted. There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

(COMMENT)

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
​

Cultural property must be respected.

(COMMENT)

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country. Some terrorist never see the judicial system. You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Air-Conditioned Ethics


Paper laws scribbled by ignorant know-it-alls do not create a new and higher reality. The blind conceit of those ambitious imbeciles and their Born to Rule attitude lead to unworkable organizations such as the UN. And we are supposed to believe it is any different from the League of Nations just because self-appointed mindless mentors tell us so? Or how about the Kellogg-Briand Pact? That piece of paper outlawed war in 1928. And the Geneva Convention kills fighting men in order to save cowards who refuse to openly take sides.

 

[RoccoR]

The Sage of Main Street, et al,

Well, in some respects, there is a point to be made here. I'm not sure I would use that strong of language --- but, there is a point to be made.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Paper laws scribbled by ignorant know-it-alls do not create a new and higher reality.

(COMMENT)

Ethics and Morality, they are tough and very hard learning points; but America has grappled with it several times. The conclusion is that you cannot legislate morality. The two biggest examples are "Prohibition" and "Abortion." Both were very contentious and controversial. But what we discovered was that the backlash of the legislation to limit or prohibit, can be more damaging as a cure than the unethical or immoral act that it attempts to control or prohibit. Prohibition created the catalyst for multi-level set of criminal enterprise from the vertical integration of the manufacture, storage in barrels, bottles, transportation and sale of prohibited alcohol, on one vertical rise. And then the infrastructure of the of speakeasies, night clubs and blind tiger establishments. America lost more tax revenue, and suffered more criminal gang wars and hijackings then it ever saved in terms of salvation for the drinkers. Similarly, the criminalization in some venues, and systematic obstructive regulations created a back alley abortionist supported by those in need, and an entirely new line of contraception; in terms of medication and devices.

In January of 1920 the American government banned the sale and supply of alcohol, the government thought that this would curb crime and violence, prohibition did not achieve it’s goals, leading more toward higher crime rates and excessive violence.

The medical staff often refuses to help and will even harass women about their botched abortion. 600,000 maternal deaths occur each year. Seventy thousand (70,000) of those maternal deaths are from the complications of unsafe abortion which represents 12 to 13% percent of maternal deaths.
​

You CANNOT legislate morals and ethical standards.

The blind conceit of those ambitious imbeciles and their Born to Rule attitude lead to unworkable organizations such as the UN. And we are supposed to believe it is any different from the League of Nations just because self-appointed mindless mentors tell us so? Or how about the Kellogg-Briand Pact? That piece of paper outlawed war in 1928. And the Geneva Convention kills fighting men in order to save cowards who refuse to openly take sides.

(COMMENT)

Humanitarian Laws (IHL) also can have an adverse effect. In the case of the Arab-Israeli War, had the pre-1949 Geneva Convention had been applied there would probably have been an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict in 1967-68 at the latest. But Current Customary and IHL is geared to quell violence and obstruct the decisive illumination of the opponents will to fight. While it does not reduce the overall number of deaths, it certainly extends the length and duration of the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Tehon]

The Sage of Main Street, et al,

Well, in some respects, there is a point to be made here. I'm not sure I would use that strong of language --- but, there is a point to be made.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Paper laws scribbled by ignorant know-it-alls do not create a new and higher reality.

(COMMENT)

Ethics and Morality, they are tough and very hard learning points; but America has grappled with it several times. The conclusion is that you cannot legislate morality. The two biggest examples are "Prohibition" and "Abortion." Both were very contentious and controversial. But what we discovered was that the backlash of the legislation to limit or prohibit, can be more damaging as a cure than the unethical or immoral act that it attempts to control or prohibit. Prohibition created the catalyst for multi-level set of criminal enterprise from the vertical integration of the manufacture, storage in barrels, bottles, transportation and sale of prohibited alcohol, on one vertical rise. And then the infrastructure of the of speakeasies, night clubs and blind tiger establishments. America lost more tax revenue, and suffered more criminal gang wars and hijackings then it ever saved in terms of salvation for the drinkers. Similarly, the criminalization in some venues, and systematic obstructive regulations created a back alley abortionist supported by those in need, and an entirely new line of contraception; in terms of medication and devices.

In January of 1920 the American government banned the sale and supply of alcohol, the government thought that this would curb crime and violence, prohibition did not achieve it’s goals, leading more toward higher crime rates and excessive violence.

The medical staff often refuses to help and will even harass women about their botched abortion. 600,000 maternal deaths occur each year. Seventy thousand (70,000) of those maternal deaths are from the complications of unsafe abortion which represents 12 to 13% percent of maternal deaths.
​

You CANNOT legislate morals and ethical standards.

The blind conceit of those ambitious imbeciles and their Born to Rule attitude lead to unworkable organizations such as the UN. And we are supposed to believe it is any different from the League of Nations just because self-appointed mindless mentors tell us so? Or how about the Kellogg-Briand Pact? That piece of paper outlawed war in 1928. And the Geneva Convention kills fighting men in order to save cowards who refuse to openly take sides.

(COMMENT)

Humanitarian Laws (IHL) also can have an adverse effect. In the case of the Arab-Israeli War, had the pre-1949 Geneva Convention had been applied there would probably have been an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict in 1967-68 at the latest. But Current Customary and IHL is geared to quell violence and obstruct the decisive illumination of the opponents will to fight. While it does not reduce the overall number of deaths, it certainly extends the length and duration of the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, damn those pesky humanitarian laws. People can't even steal land anymore unmolested.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well let's run through some of these.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

(COMMENT)

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document. Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression. In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee). This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement. While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

(COMMENT)

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections. And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights." In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance. Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE: Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).​

The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:

Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state (example, the West Bank AUG 1988). The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as terra nullius. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.​

it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control." It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference) has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.

Occupation is only a temporary situation,

and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

(COMMENT)

Who is arguing otherwise. It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities. The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement. However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988. The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988. During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power. The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP. For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues. I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues. In time of war, most social services suffer. It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

(COMMENT)

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP. News to me...

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

This has been discussed to death. Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase. The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that. The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

• (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact. In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small. if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small. However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted. There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

(COMMENT)

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
​

Cultural property must be respected.

(COMMENT)

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country. Some terrorist never see the judicial system. You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.​

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well let's run through some of these.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

(COMMENT)

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document. Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression. In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee). This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement. While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

(COMMENT)

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections. And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights." In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance. Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE: Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).​

The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:

Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state (example, the West Bank AUG 1988). The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as terra nullius. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.​

it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control." It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference) has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.

Occupation is only a temporary situation,

and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

(COMMENT)

Who is arguing otherwise. It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities. The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement. However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988. The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988. During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power. The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP. For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues. I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues. In time of war, most social services suffer. It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

(COMMENT)

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP. News to me...

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

This has been discussed to death. Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase. The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that. The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

• (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact. In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small. if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small. However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted. There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

(COMMENT)

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
​

Cultural property must be respected.

(COMMENT)

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country. Some terrorist never see the judicial system. You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.​

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

That's funny.

Taqiyya is not going to help you here. Islamic terrorism is not defending anyone.

You should read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in gee-had. So, I read the Hamas islamo-fascist Charter. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the Hamas Charter consistent with the islamo-fascist rambling of the Moslem Brotherhood and confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad (swish) and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's (swish) sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from islamo-sheikhs and scholars.

Are you really suggesting that 14,000 rockets fired at Israel, stabbings, shootings, islamo-tunnels, car bombings and an entire islamo-welfare fraud dedicated to furthering Islamic terrorism is simply Islamic terrorists "defending themselves"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well let's run through some of these.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

(COMMENT)

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document. Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression. In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee). This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement. While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

(COMMENT)

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections. And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights." In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance. Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE: Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).​

The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:

Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state (example, the West Bank AUG 1988). The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as terra nullius. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.​

it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control." It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference) has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.

Occupation is only a temporary situation,

and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

(COMMENT)

Who is arguing otherwise. It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities. The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement. However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988. The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988. During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power. The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

(COMMENT)

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP. For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues. I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues. In time of war, most social services suffer. It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

(COMMENT)

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP. News to me...

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

This has been discussed to death. Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase. The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that. The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

• (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact. In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small. if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small. However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted. There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

(COMMENT)

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
​

Cultural property must be respected.

(COMMENT)

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

(COMMENT)

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country. Some terrorist never see the judicial system. You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.​

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

That's funny.

Taqiyya is not going to help you here. Islamic terrorism is not defending anyone.

You should read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in gee-had. So, I read the Hamas islamo-fascist Charter. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the Hamas Charter consistent with the islamo-fascist rambling of the Moslem Brotherhood and confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad (swish) and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's (swish) sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from islamo-sheikhs and scholars.

Are you really suggesting that 14,000 rockets fired at Israel, stabbings, shootings, islamo-tunnels, car bombings and an entire islamo-welfare fraud dedicated to furthering Islamic terrorism is simply Islamic terrorists "defending themselves"?

Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I agree 100%. Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.

As we have discussed before, the UN Special Committee on decolonization (C-24), was established to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)]. Annually C-24 up-dates the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable.

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

(COMMENT)

Very much like my discussion here, with our friend "Tehon," understanding the terminology and its applicability is essential. While there areas in the world that are applicable in the sense of A/RES/1514 (XV), NONE of them are anywhere near the Middle East Theater. While there may be grounds for complaint, by the Arab-Palestinian, relative to (what is often called) the "territories occupied since 1967" --- as denoted in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19), you will not find "Palestine" (as defined in the Resolution on the Question of Palestine A/RES/43/177) on the table of Non-Self-Governing Territories as created by UN C-24.

I do understand that in using the word/phrase "colonial settlements," you are mimicking the PLO-NAD perspective. In doing so, you are using a political concept of the word/phrase, as opposed to what is actually true in realistic terms.

2. Is the Palestinian leadership against negotiations? No. Negotiations are necessary to reach a final status agreement and to define the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to further colonize Palestine with more colonial settlements. The State of Palestine is committed to any and all serious initiatives to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but it is not committed to any proposals to legitimize Israeli occupation or to cultivate Israel’s culture of impunity. It is time for the international community to hold Israel accountable rather than using negotiations to disguise its inaction and failure to assume its responsibility toward the land and people of Palestine. - See more at: Questions and Answers on Negotiations and Internationalizations
​

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].

"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
​

The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) has an excellent outline on the Six Questions for Resuming Negotiations. While I do not agree to that these questions or issues should be a barrier to talks, I think this is well worth the reading. It will help everyone to understand the "Palestinian" view-point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I agree 100%. Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.

As we have discussed before, the UN Special Committee on decolonization (C-24), was established to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)]. Annually C-24 up-dates the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable.

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

(COMMENT)

Very much like my discussion here, with our friend "Tehon," understanding the terminology and its applicability is essential. While there areas in the world that are applicable in the sense of A/RES/1514 (XV), NONE of them are anywhere near the Middle East Theater. While there may be grounds for complaint, by the Arab-Palestinian, relative to (what is often called) the "territories occupied since 1967" --- as denoted in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19), you will not find "Palestine" (as defined in the Resolution on the Question of Palestine A/RES/43/177) on the table of Non-Self-Governing Territories as created by UN C-24.

I do understand that in using the word/phrase "colonial settlements," you are mimicking the PLO-NAD perspective. In doing so, you are using a political concept of the word/phrase, as opposed to what is actually true in realistic terms.

2. Is the Palestinian leadership against negotiations? No. Negotiations are necessary to reach a final status agreement and to define the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to further colonize Palestine with more colonial settlements. The State of Palestine is committed to any and all serious initiatives to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but it is not committed to any proposals to legitimize Israeli occupation or to cultivate Israel’s culture of impunity. It is time for the international community to hold Israel accountable rather than using negotiations to disguise its inaction and failure to assume its responsibility toward the land and people of Palestine. - See more at: Questions and Answers on Negotiations and Internationalizations
​

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].

"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
​

The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) has an excellent outline on the Six Questions for Resuming Negotiations. While I do not agree to that these questions or issues should be a barrier to talks, I think this is well worth the reading. It will help everyone to understand the "Palestinian" view-point.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting political opinions.

But I am running on the facts on the ground.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Tehon]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I agree 100%. Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.

As we have discussed before, the UN Special Committee on decolonization (C-24), was established to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)]. Annually C-24 up-dates the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable.

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.

Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.

(COMMENT)

Very much like my discussion here, with our friend "Tehon," understanding the terminology and its applicability is essential. While there areas in the world that are applicable in the sense of A/RES/1514 (XV), NONE of them are anywhere near the Middle East Theater. While there may be grounds for complaint, by the Arab-Palestinian, relative to (what is often called) the "territories occupied since 1967" --- as denoted in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19), you will not find "Palestine" (as defined in the Resolution on the Question of Palestine A/RES/43/177) on the table of Non-Self-Governing Territories as created by UN C-24.

I do understand that in using the word/phrase "colonial settlements," you are mimicking the PLO-NAD perspective. In doing so, you are using a political concept of the word/phrase, as opposed to what is actually true in realistic terms.

2. Is the Palestinian leadership against negotiations? No. Negotiations are necessary to reach a final status agreement and to define the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to further colonize Palestine with more colonial settlements. The State of Palestine is committed to any and all serious initiatives to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but it is not committed to any proposals to legitimize Israeli occupation or to cultivate Israel’s culture of impunity. It is time for the international community to hold Israel accountable rather than using negotiations to disguise its inaction and failure to assume its responsibility toward the land and people of Palestine. - See more at: Questions and Answers on Negotiations and Internationalizations
​

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].

"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
​

The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) has an excellent outline on the Six Questions for Resuming Negotiations. While I do not agree to that these questions or issues should be a barrier to talks, I think this is well worth the reading. It will help everyone to understand the "Palestinian" view-point.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians (as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19) are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine) as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].


"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."

Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If you are talking about uniquely Hebrew supernaturals, monsters and demons, most come directly from biblical forklore (like Lilith). Otherwise, it is hard to distinguish imaginary monsters and the men that become monsters - like HAMAS.

Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish have this type of Demonic Possession or Entity that captures souls (the human spirit). It is very similar to the demon that is depicted in movies like the "Exorcist." The Jewish call it a "Dybbuk."

But before HAMAS, there was a man that many thought turned from good to evil as early as the 1920's; he as a Syrian Imam, and old fashion Islamic revivalist. His name was Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; the name sake for the HAMAS rocket. [The Qassam-3 is a 170mm Rocket that was introduced by HAMAS in 2005 (the year of the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.)] Izz ad-Din al-Qassam formed Insurgent cells to attack British and Jewish soft-targets; usually at night.

(ANSWER)

While there are some that believe the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, was a disguised evil; for sure the Islamic Evangelist Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was definitely evil.

Most Respectfully,
R