Why does israel get a free pass when it comes to apartheid?

[Victory67]

What international laws as none apply to Palestine, they are not signatories to any treaties embodying international Law. As soon as they sign a peace deal and become a nation they will be asked to sign and then become responsible for their actions. Why do you think they refuse to sign

You obviously haven't read the 4th Geneva Conventions which clearly states that the treaty is binding upon all signatories whether or not the other parties to the conflict have signed it.

 

[Victory67]

I am saying the treaties you used to claim Israel was in breach of international laws were out of date before Israel existed. And that like the Geneva conventions and Palestine, do not apply to Israel as they never signed them. So in reality and under the terms of International law the Geneva conventions do not apply to Palestine.

The 4th Geneva Conventions apply to Israel because Israel signed the treaty and has committed to following it. Palestine not signing the treaty is irrelevent and you will see that when you read the treaty.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I am saying the treaties you used to claim Israel was in breach of international laws were out of date before Israel existed. And that like the Geneva conventions and Palestine, do not apply to Israel as they never signed them. So in reality and under the terms of International law the Geneva conventions do not apply to Palestine.

The 4th Geneva Conventions apply to Israel because Israel signed the treaty and has committed to following it. Palestine not signing the treaty is irrelevent and you will see that when you read the treaty.

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel
​

 

[Victory67]

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel
​

Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. They are obligated to abide by them.

Whether or not Palestine has signed the treaty is irrelevent as the treaty clearly states that nations are bound by it regardless if the other relevent parties have signed the treaty.

Furthermore, the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank as Jordan was the legal Occupier of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. When Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 they became the legal Occupier of the land. Their military Occupation is fully legal but they must abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions regulations for the protections of Occupied Territories.

If Israel doesn't want to abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions they should renounce their participation in the treaty.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel
​

Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. They are obligated to abide by them.

Whether or not Palestine has signed the treaty is irrelevent as the treaty clearly states that nations are bound by it regardless if the other relevent parties have signed the treaty.

Furthermore, the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank as Jordan was the legal Occupier of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. When Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 they became the legal Occupier of the land. Their military Occupation is fully legal but they must abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions regulations for the protections of Occupied Territories.

If Israel doesn't want to abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions they should renounce their participation in the treaty.

Jordan's claim on the West Bank was not recognized by any country apart from two countries.

Israel simply recaptured the WB in a war of defense. As you can see from the article regarding the San Remo Mandate the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people and no law and no country can take that away. I don't know why you lot find facts so difficult to absorb even when I have to speak to you like you are six year olds.

 

[Shaarona]

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel
​

Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. They are obligated to abide by them.

Whether or not Palestine has signed the treaty is irrelevent as the treaty clearly states that nations are bound by it regardless if the other relevent parties have signed the treaty.

Furthermore, the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank as Jordan was the legal Occupier of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. When Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 they became the legal Occupier of the land. Their military Occupation is fully legal but they must abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions regulations for the protections of Occupied Territories.

If Israel doesn't want to abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions they should renounce their participation in the treaty.

Jordan's claim on the West Bank was not recognized by any country apart from two countries.

Israel simply recaptured the WB in a war of defense. As you can see from the article regarding the San Remo Mandate the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people and no law and no country can take that away. I don't know why you lot find facts so difficult to absorb even when I have to speak to you like you are six year olds.

Prince Faisal had NO authority.. he was a mayor of Mecca.

 

[Victory67]

Jordan's claim on the West Bank was not recognized by any country apart from two countries.

Israel simply recaptured the WB in a war of defense. As you can see from the article regarding the San Remo Mandate the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people and no law and no country can take that away. I don't know why you lot find facts so difficult to absorb even when I have to speak to you like you are six year olds.

Jordan was the legal Occupier of the West Bank. Their annexation of the land was illegal but their Occupation of the land was perfectly legal just as Israel's is today.

Israel can't recapture land that was never legally theirs. The San Remo Conference says the Jews may settle in Palestine to make a Jewish homeland but it never said that all of Palestine would become a Jewish state. Nevermind the fact that the San Remo Conference clearly states that the Jews are allowed to settle in all of Palestine and make a homeland there as long as they fully respect and protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jews in Palestine. Israel has been grossly violating that condition since 1949.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel
​

Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. They are obligated to abide by them.

Whether or not Palestine has signed the treaty is irrelevent as the treaty clearly states that nations are bound by it regardless if the other relevent parties have signed the treaty.

Furthermore, the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank as Jordan was the legal Occupier of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. When Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 they became the legal Occupier of the land. Their military Occupation is fully legal but they must abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions regulations for the protections of Occupied Territories.

If Israel doesn't want to abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions they should renounce their participation in the treaty.

Jordan's claim on the West Bank was not recognized by any country apart from two countries.

Israel simply recaptured the WB in a war of defense. As you can see from the article regarding the San Remo Mandate the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people and no law and no country can take that away. I don't know why you lot find facts so difficult to absorb even when I have to speak to you like you are six year olds.

Do you have a link that says that?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. They are obligated to abide by them.

Whether or not Palestine has signed the treaty is irrelevent as the treaty clearly states that nations are bound by it regardless if the other relevent parties have signed the treaty.

Furthermore, the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank as Jordan was the legal Occupier of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. When Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 they became the legal Occupier of the land. Their military Occupation is fully legal but they must abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions regulations for the protections of Occupied Territories.

If Israel doesn't want to abide by the 4th Geneva Conventions they should renounce their participation in the treaty.

Jordan's claim on the West Bank was not recognized by any country apart from two countries.

Israel simply recaptured the WB in a war of defense. As you can see from the article regarding the San Remo Mandate the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people and no law and no country can take that away. I don't know why you lot find facts so difficult to absorb even when I have to speak to you like you are six year olds.

Do you have a link that says that?

Wow, I would have thought by now you would have learned some history.

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[montelatici]

the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people

Total bullshit.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people

Total bullshit.

Oh really? Do you have a link for that then?

 

[Victory67]

the land known as the West Bank was given by the League of Nations to the Jewish people

Total bullshit.

The League of Nations allowed the Jews to settle in Palestine and make a homeland there, as long as they protected and respected the civil and religious rights of non-Jews in Palestine.

None of the related documentation ever states that ALL of Palestine shall become a Jewish homeland. This is just fantasy made up by some Israelis.

 

[Victory67]

If the San Remo Conference and the Mandare are still in affect, than so are the protections for non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine. Israel has violated these rights since 1949.

 

[Victory67]

Either all rights in San Remo shall be respected or none shall be respected.

The Israelis don't get to pick and choose.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

The San Remo Convention was a landmark case in international law. Today, it is all overtaken by events. It was a time when the enlightened leadership of the world took a grave chance and attempted to codify the basic foundations in the Rule of Law and assemble such, that today we have the embryonic pieces behind the rights of self-determination, and the laws which protect cultures and people. Enlightened as they were, and recognizing that the Jewish People needed a life-line to sustain their culture and heritage, they never envisioned the conspiracy behind the fire at the Reichstag, Jews are deprived of their citizenship, Kristallnacht, Jews must follow curfews - Jews must turn in radios to the police - Jews must wear yellow stars of David, deportations/ghettos/concentration camps; and The Holocaust.

What we really argue about today, relatives to the decisions of the Allied Powers at San Remo, is how well the grand experiment actually worked.

Given the outcome, nearly a century later, it is unlikely that the UN, the Allied Powers, or their successors into the future, will ever attempt again to create a National Home for the preservation of an endangered culture.

If the San Remo Conference and the Mandare are still in affect, than so are the protections for non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine. Israel has violated these rights since 1949.

(COMMENT)

There is nothing remaining of the San Remo Agreement that could be considered enforceable today. It was an attempt to at reconstituting their national home in that territory where the Allied Powers drew a historical connection to the Jewish people. No one envisioned the Arab would raise the specter of a Second Holocaust so soon after the first (the first Nazi Holocaust ending in November 1945; and the second pledged by Arab Palestinians in February 1948).

The San Remo Agreement, today, is nothing more than a dusty old artifact, on the shelf of a musty museum. But at one time, it was as important to the history of man as any of the codexes written by Leonardo da Vinci. It was a moment in time when the Powers came together and said, we - in the name of humanity - need to reach-out and save this culture and its people from further harm and its demise.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

Either all rights in San Remo shall be respected or none shall be respected.

The Israelis don't get to pick and choose.

Agreed...no one shall be respected.
So what's the problem except for God and His IDF?

 

[Victory67]

(COMMENT)

There is nothing remaining of the San Remo Agreement that could be considered enforceable today. It was an attempt to at reconstituting their national home in that territory where the Allied Powers drew a historical connection to the Jewish people. No one envisioned the Arab would raise the specter of a Second Holocaust so soon after the first (the first Nazi Holocaust ending in November 1945; and the second pledged by Arab Palestinians in February 1948).

The San Remo Agreement, today, is nothing more than a dusty old artifact, on the shelf of a musty museum. But at one time, it was as important to the history of man as any of the codexes written by Leonardo da Vinci. It was a moment in time when the Powers came together and said, we - in the name of humanity - need to reach-out and save this culture and its people from further harm and its demise.

Most Respectfully,
R

[MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION] seems to think the rights afforded to the Jews in the San Remo Conference are still very much alive today. But for some reason she thinks the protections for non-Jewish rights in Palestine, set forth in San Remo, are now null and void.

Its a very contradictory position and I fail to understand how its logical.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

(COMMENT)

There is nothing remaining of the San Remo Agreement that could be considered enforceable today. It was an attempt to at reconstituting their national home in that territory where the Allied Powers drew a historical connection to the Jewish people. No one envisioned the Arab would raise the specter of a Second Holocaust so soon after the first (the first Nazi Holocaust ending in November 1945; and the second pledged by Arab Palestinians in February 1948).

The San Remo Agreement, today, is nothing more than a dusty old artifact, on the shelf of a musty museum. But at one time, it was as important to the history of man as any of the codexes written by Leonardo da Vinci. It was a moment in time when the Powers came together and said, we - in the name of humanity - need to reach-out and save this culture and its people from further harm and its demise.

Most Respectfully,
R

[MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION] seems to think the rights afforded to the Jews in the San Remo Conference are still very much alive today. But for some reason she thinks the protections for non-Jewish rights in Palestine, set forth in San Remo, are now null and void.

Its a very contradictory position and I fail to understand how its logical.

It was illegal to go against the resolutions at the San Remo conference. The Jewish people's right is protected by law. Therefore the West Bank settlements are legal not only from San Remo resolutions giving the land to the Jews but also because the land was won in a defensive war. I do not think the protection for non-Jewish rights are null and void and they aren't.

 

[Victory67]

It was illegal to go against the resolutions at the San Remo conference. The Jewish people's right is protected by law. Therefore the West Bank settlements are legal not only from San Remo resolutions giving the land to the Jews but also because the land was won in a defensive war. I do not think the protection for non-Jewish rights are null and void and they aren't.

According to [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], the San Remo Conference is a dead piece of paper.

Any settlement built on confiscated private land is illegal. This is what the 4th GC states.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

It was illegal to go against the resolutions at the San Remo conference. The Jewish people's right is protected by law. Therefore the West Bank settlements are legal not only from San Remo resolutions giving the land to the Jews but also because the land was won in a defensive war. I do not think the protection for non-Jewish rights are null and void and they aren't.

According to [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], the San Remo Conference is a dead piece of paper.

Any settlement built on confiscated private land is illegal. This is what the 4th GC states.

It is dead but shouldn't have been because all changes to it were illegal. So if Israel wants to go by the San Remo resolutions it is perfectly within its rights to do so.