The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

They understand that there are "protections" (active measures) extended to "protected Persons" that are not required to extend to civilians.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, yes I have --- several times.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different. See Post #40.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R

You still have not explained this statement.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

(COMMENT)

The protections afforded "Protected Persons" do not apply to "civilians" of the Occupying Power.

"The population of the occupied Palestinian territory are accorded "protected persons" status. Civilians of the State of Israel are not "protected persons." Civilians of the State of Israel are protected as "civilians" under Article 68, the rules of war, and Protocols I and II. This passage you've picked-out and focused on does not preclude the protection afforded all non-combatant "civilians."

(QUESTION)

What is the point you are trying to make?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did they state that the nationals of the occupying power are not protected when they are?

Did they have some surplus ink that they wanted to use up?

(COMMENT)

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status. These protections do not extend to the population before they are occupied or after the occupation ends.

The limitations of a military force on what actions they can take during combat and after the cessation of hostilities cover all civilians everywhere, at all times.

Remember, that the Geneva Convention citation you are concerned about, cover what the "Occupying Power" is required to do and the limitations they have in dealing with the people under occupation (protected persons); just as it requires and limits how the people under occupation interact with the occupation force. In this case of the Israelis, the convention requires the Israeli act in a certain way in dealing with Arab Palestinians, and Israeli basic law deals with how the Occupying Power deals with Israeli Civilians.

International Humanitarian Law, like the Customary Rules of War and the Geneva Conventions, attempt to limit the impact of conflict relative to those entities not engaged. It is not a tool for the Jihadist and Fedayeen to use in their Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) to justify attacks against non-combatants and civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.​

Indeed, those assholes really fucked up.

It is not that complex. The solution is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wrong on both counts.As usual.

Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:

UN: We still consider Gaza “occupied” by Israel




UN We still consider Gaza 8220 occupied 8221 by Israel View from Geneva

Israel was a colonial project to be defended by Europe as understood by the Zionists themselves. Stop your nonsense Rocco. Who do you think you are fooling? Maybe your fellow Zionist looneys, but not me.

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. "

Theodor Herzl

The Jewish State - Theodor Herzl s Program for Zionism

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I will grant you that Israel has a strong influence over Gaza. But that does not change the facts. But I look at the issue from a much deeper perspective.

Wrong on both counts.As usual.

Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:

UN: We still consider Gaza “occupied” by Israel

UN We still consider Gaza 8220 occupied 8221 by Israel View from Geneva

Israel was a colonial project to be defended by Europe as understood by the Zionists themselves. Stop your nonsense Rocco. Who do you think you are fooling? Maybe your fellow Zionist looneys, but not me.

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. "

(COMMENT)

I will grant you that there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the Security Council language and that of the Statutory Law (Article 42). But I look at the consequences of interpreting that Gaza is under occupation; and the consequences of interpreting that Gaza NOT under occupation.

If you consider that the territory is under occupation, then Israel did not invade Gaza during Operation Protective Edge; following incessant rocket fire from Gaza at Israel.
Israel cannot invade the very territory that it already occupies.
Then there is the impact of Article 68, GCIV, in which the rocket fire itself is a violation of the Convention wherein the Arab Palestinians acted with the sole intention of doing harm the Occupying Power; serious acts against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

In Article 6§3, GCIV, a new definition for the end of occupation, one that changed the central criterion for evaluating the end of an occupation, from effective control to the exercise of governmental powers or “functions of government.”

If you consider the Article 42, Hague Convention, and Article 6§3 in play, then you can see quite clearly that the Israelis do not have "effective control" and unable to exercise governmental functions over the Gaza Strip.
​

It remains to be seen if the International Criminal Court (ICC), how they will define the status of the exercise of control.

Relative to colonial programs, and its relationship to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV),

• Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,
• Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Palestine to attain independence in Trust Territories,

The Israeli and the Arab Palestinian have exercised their right to self-determination; and able to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Most Respectively,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

I will grant you that Israel has a strong influence over Gaza. But that does not change the facts. But I look at the issue from a much deeper perspective.

Wrong on both counts.As usual.

Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:

UN: We still consider Gaza “occupied” by Israel

UN We still consider Gaza 8220 occupied 8221 by Israel View from Geneva

Israel was a colonial project to be defended by Europe as understood by the Zionists themselves. Stop your nonsense Rocco. Who do you think you are fooling? Maybe your fellow Zionist looneys, but not me.

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. "

(COMMENT)

I will grant you that there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the Security Council language and that of the Statutory Law (Article 42). But I look at the consequences of interpreting that Gaza is under occupation; and the consequences of interpreting that Gaza NOT under occupation.

If you consider that the territory is under occupation, then Israel did not invade Gaza during Operation Protective Edge; following incessant rocket fire from Gaza at Israel.
Israel cannot invade the very territory that it already occupies.
Then there is the impact of Article 68, GCIV, in which the rocket fire itself is a violation of the Convention wherein the Arab Palestinians acted with the sole intention of doing harm the Occupying Power; serious acts against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

In Article 6§3, GCIV, a new definition for the end of occupation, one that changed the central criterion for evaluating the end of an occupation, from effective control to the exercise of governmental powers or “functions of government.”

If you consider the Article 42, Hague Convention, and Article 6§3 in play, then you can see quite clearly that the Israelis do not have "effective control" and unable to exercise governmental functions over the Gaza Strip.
​

It remains to be seen if the International Criminal Court (ICC), how they will define the status of the exercise of control.

Relative to colonial programs, and its relationship to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV),

• Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,
• Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Palestine to attain independence in Trust Territories,

The Israeli and the Arab Palestinian have exercised their right to self-determination; and able to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Most Respectively,
R

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​

Like what?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The helped the process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​

​

Like what?

(COMMENT)

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The helped the process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​

​

Like what?

(COMMENT)

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, when did any of that plan actually take place?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A sufficient amount was accomplished for Jewish State that independence was effected.

P F Tinmore, et al,

They helped to process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​

​

Like what?

(COMMENT)

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, when did any of that plan actually take place?

(COMMENT)

Israel was established on 15 MAY 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A sufficient amount was accomplished for Jewish State that independence was effected.

P F Tinmore, et al,

They helped to process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​

​

Like what?

(COMMENT)

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, when did any of that plan actually take place?

(COMMENT)

Israel was established on 15 MAY 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, we know that but what part did the UN do?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If you're asking for a detailed account, then you need to access the records:

B. DOCUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION A/AC.21/
E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/Agenda/
F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/SR/

P F Tinmore, et al,

A sufficient amount was accomplished for Jewish State that independence was effected.

P F Tinmore, et al,

They helped to process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​

​

Like what?

(COMMENT)

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, when did any of that plan actually take place?

(COMMENT)

Israel was established on 15 MAY 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, we know that but what part did the UN do?

(COMMENT)

You will note that the document record covers such issues as:

• Postal
• Banking
• Government Communications
• Police Service
• Provisional Government

Your criticism of the UNPC or your insistence that they do more is somewhat interesting.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SAYIT]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wrong on both counts.As usual.

Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:
UN: We still consider Gaza “occupied” by Israel

Pretty arrogant considering those the UN claims to be occupied say that is camel crap. In a rare, honest moment Hamas FM Mahmoud al-Zahar admitted as much:

Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.”
“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...gIGAAg&usg=AFQjCNFNz5uIm2g9aPuex-qHGI_sy2CkTg

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If you're asking for a detailed account, then you need to access the records:

B. DOCUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION A/AC.21/
E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/Agenda/
F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/SR/

P F Tinmore, et al,

A sufficient amount was accomplished for Jewish State that independence was effected.

P F Tinmore, et al,

They helped to process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the

​

Like what?

(COMMENT)

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, when did any of that plan actually take place?

(COMMENT)

Israel was established on 15 MAY 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, we know that but what part did the UN do?

(COMMENT)

You will note that the document record covers such issues as:

• Postal
• Banking
• Government Communications
• Police Service
• Provisional Government

Your criticism of the UNPC or your insistence that they do more is somewhat interesting.

Most Respectfully,
R

They made all these plans and had all these meetings but when it came to the nitty gritty they didn't show up.

I can't see where they actually did anything.

 

[Art__Allm]

Considering that 60% of the Jews in Israel
are Sephardic, meaning they came from the
surrounding area then you would have a devil
of a job to find your 90%. Then when the DNA
results are in and show that 95% of all the
Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews then
you might understand that they ALL have a
right to live in Israel.

All people are related to each others in some degree, and Europeans came to Europe from Africa.

Does that mean that Europeans can "return" to Africa and just kick out the African population?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.​

Indeed, those assholes really fucked up.

It is not that complex. The solution is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Does that mean you advocate the complete removal of all colonising muslims the world over and their deportation to the empty quarter in Saudi were they belong ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wrong on both counts.As usual.

Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:

UN: We still consider Gaza “occupied” by Israel




UN We still consider Gaza 8220 occupied 8221 by Israel View from Geneva

Israel was a colonial project to be defended by Europe as understood by the Zionists themselves. Stop your nonsense Rocco. Who do you think you are fooling? Maybe your fellow Zionist looneys, but not me.

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. "

Theodor Herzl

The Jewish State - Theodor Herzl s Program for Zionism

Yet the P.A majority membership has stated that gaza has not been occupied since August 2005, now I would believe the leaders of gaza over some jumped up politicians in Washington any day

 

[Phoenall]

Considering that 60% of the Jews in Israel
are Sephardic, meaning they came from the
surrounding area then you would have a devil
of a job to find your 90%. Then when the DNA
results are in and show that 95% of all the
Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews then
you might understand that they ALL have a
right to live in Israel.

All people are related to each others in some degree, and Europeans came to Europe from Africa.

Does that mean that Europeans can "return" to Africa and just kick out the African population?

Does this mean the muslims can just walk into a country and declare that it was Islamic 2000 years ago so it is Islamic now. Because that is what they are doing in Palestine.. All because their god said he had given the world to them to live in

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.

• 
  Article 42: 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.

The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration. If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied. If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation. It is a complex issue.

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?

(COMMENT)

Israel was never a “colonial project.” It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people. In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles.

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

• Hague Convention
• Geneva Conventions
• The Additional Protocols
• The Rome Statues, ICC
• The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
• Convention on the Law of the Sea
  
• etc,

As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was never a “colonial project.”​

Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II

Indeed.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

COL Meinertzhagen was a British Intelligence Officer.

Israel was never a “colonial project.”

Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II

Indeed.

(QUESTION)

Who or what is the "Ministry of the Zionist colonial office?"
Do you have any reasonable evidence that Israel was a "colonial project."

(COMMENT)

In the latter part of the nineteenth century the United Kingdom also gained control over a number of territories with the status of "protectorate". The ministerial responsibility for these territories was initially held by the Foreign Secretary. However, by the early years of the twentieth century the responsibility for each of these territories had been transferred to the Colonial Secretary as well. The League of Nations mandated territories acquired as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) became a further responsibility of the Colonial Office in the aftermath of the First World War. SOURCE: wikipedia

Don't build your case on the basis that the funding and logistics of the Mandate for Palestine was managed by the Colonial Office. That is just a division of work and allocation of responsibilities for colonies, dominions and mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

COL Meinertzhagen was a British Intelligence Officer.

Israel was never a “colonial project.”

Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II

Indeed.

(QUESTION)

Who or what is the "Ministry of the Zionist colonial office?"
Do you have any reasonable evidence that Israel was a "colonial project."

(COMMENT)

In the latter part of the nineteenth century the United Kingdom also gained control over a number of territories with the status of "protectorate". The ministerial responsibility for these territories was initially held by the Foreign Secretary. However, by the early years of the twentieth century the responsibility for each of these territories had been transferred to the Colonial Secretary as well. The League of Nations mandated territories acquired as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) became a further responsibility of the Colonial Office in the aftermath of the First World War. SOURCE: wikipedia

Don't build your case on the basis that the funding and logistics of the Mandate for Palestine was managed by the Colonial Office. That is just a division of work and allocation of responsibilities for colonies, dominions and mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't. I knew that Israel was a colonial project long before I found out that the Zionists actually had a colonial office.

Why would they have a colonial office if was not a colonial project?