mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.
Since almost EVERY piece of territory the US owns or possesses have been gained thru war,do you suggest we return them to the original owners?
Do we return the east coast to England?
Do we the southwest US to Mexico?
Do we return Puerto Rico to the Spanish?
How about other countries?
Do they return their land to its original owners,even if it was taken in war hundreds if not thousands of years ago?
If the partaking countries have signed the relevant international treaties hundreds or even thousands of years ago and subsequently violated them, then I'd say: yes, the land should be returned.
Walter Hinteler wrote:ican711nm wrote:
Whether the Israeli West Bank policy has been wise or stupid, just or unjust, successful or unsucessful is irrelevant.
...
Quote: International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Malarkey! Whose fantasy is that? There is no such international law!
AGAIN!
Whether the Israeli West Bank policy has been wise or stupid, just or unjust, successful or unsucessful is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the leadership of the non-Israeli palestinian arabs has failed to specify its conditions for declaring Israel's right to exist. Until this arab leadership specifies such conditions, Israel must assume that no such conditions exist.
The persistent lack of such specifications makes it plain that there is nothing Israel can do to get this arab leadership to declare Israel's right to exist. That being the case, Israel's only course is to try to protect itself as best it can until this arab leadership is replaced by new leadership that will specify such conditions.
ican711nm wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:ican711nm wrote:
Whether the Israeli West Bank policy has been wise or stupid, just or unjust, successful or unsucessful is irrelevant.
...
Quote: International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Malarkey! Whose fantasy is that? There is no such international law!
The Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, Article 49:
Quote:Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
old europe wrote:ican711nm wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:ican711nm wrote:
Whether the Israeli West Bank policy has been wise or stupid, just or unjust, successful or unsucessful is irrelevant.
...
Quote: International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Malarkey! Whose fantasy is that? There is no such international law!
The Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, Article 49:
Quote:Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
1. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, Article 49 applies only to signatores of this convention.
2. Israel is not a signatore of this convention.
3. This convention is not a part of
international law, because it does not apply to
all occupying and conquering powers.
4. Israel is not an occupying power.
5. Israel is a conquering party.
6. Israel is not attempting to protect the people it conquered.
7. Israel is attempting to protect its own people.
ican711nm wrote:1. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, Article 49 applies only to signatores of this convention.
2. Israel is not a signatore of this convention.
That's wrong. Israel signed the Geneva Conventions on 08.12.1949. Here is Israel's
Reservation / Declaration text. The only reservation Israel has towards the Fourth Convention, or "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", is that "Subject to the reservation that, while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, Israel will use the Red Shield of David as the emblem and distinctive sign provided for in this Convention."
That means that Israel has signed the Fourth Convention and is in violation of Section III, Article 49 of the treaty it has signed.
ican711nm wrote:3. This convention is not a part of international law, because it does not apply to all occupying and conquering powers.
Depends on your definition of "international law". The Fourth Geneva Convention has been ratified by 194 countries. It applies to those countries. Israel has signed it. Israel has violated it.
ican711nm wrote:4. Israel is not an occupying power.
Israel, as a military power, is occupying territories. I think that would make Israel an "occupying power". Feel free to have a completely different opinion.
ican711nm wrote:5. Israel is a conquering party.
That's right. It conquered territory. It still occupies that territory.
ican711nm wrote:6. Israel is not attempting to protect the people it conquered.
Part of the problem, I might say.
ican711nm wrote:7. Israel is attempting to protect its own people.
... while violating the treaties it has signed, and the rights of the people in the occupied territories.
old europe wrote:ican711nm wrote:1. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, Article 49 applies only to signatores of this convention.
2. Israel is not a signatore of this convention.
That's wrong. Israel signed the Geneva Conventions on 08.12.1949. Here is Israel's
Reservation / Declaration text. The only reservation Israel has towards the Fourth Convention, or "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", is that "Subject to the reservation that, while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, Israel will use the Red Shield of David as the emblem and distinctive sign provided for in this Convention."
That means that Israel has signed the Fourth Convention and is in violation of Section III, Article 49 of the treaty it has signed.
ican711nm wrote:3. This convention is not a part of international law, because it does not apply to all occupying and conquering powers.
Depends on your definition of "international law". The Fourth Geneva Convention has been ratified by 194 countries. It applies to those countries. Israel has signed it. Israel has violated it.
ican711nm wrote:4. Israel is not an occupying power.
Israel, as a military power, is occupying territories. I think that would make Israel an "occupying power". Feel free to have a completely different opinion.
ican711nm wrote:5. Israel is a conquering party.
That's right. It conquered territory. It still occupies that territory.
ican711nm wrote:6. Israel is not attempting to protect the people it conquered.
Part of the problem, I might say.
ican711nm wrote:7. Israel is attempting to protect its own people.
... while violating the treaties it has signed, and the rights of the people in the occupied territories.
Israel did not sign the fourth Geneva convention.
Legal & International Status
It became clear that the Israeli government is insisting on violating all the International agreements, conventions, and International law rules, by expanding the illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territory horizontally and vertically; neglecting and violating the political commitments and pledges toward the International legitimacy and the Quartet and toward its Palestinian partner in peace process.
The Israeli plans and expansions in the West Bank Settlements clearly contradict the following:
UNSC Resolution 452: 'Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab occupied Territory since 1967, including Jerusalem.'
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949: 'the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the Territory it occupies.'
The Forth Geneva Convention in Article 174 also prohibits the 'extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.' Article XXXI, Oslo II, 1995: 'Neither side shall take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The Roadmap signed on April 30, 2003, between Israel and the Palestinians (originally developed by the United States, in cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations (the Quartet)) under which the Israeli Government agreed to freeze all settlement.
The '[Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001, [and] consistent with the Mitchell Report, [Government of Israel] freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).'
Related Links:
The Har Homa Settlement and the Uprooting of Abu Ghnaim Forest.
Jerusalem: the strangulation of the Arab Palestinian city.
New Expansion at Abu Ghnaim Mountain ... Har Homa Israeli Settlement
Prepared by The Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem
ARIJ
Foxfyre wrote:The Iraqi opinion of the Baker Report
HERE
I think it is likely that those who think the U.S. should admit defeat, hand over to the terrorist whatever they want, and leave Iraq think the Baker report is just great. Those who want a free Iraq capable of charting its own destiny don't view it so favorably.
It is more the Talibani opinion, rather than the Iraqi opinion of the Baker Report. Please note that even Talibani agrees with the part about talking to neighboring countries. Also, it states that others think differently than he does.
"The Iraq Study Group report, which sounded a warning alarm about US policy in Iraq and called for an eventual reduction of US troops, has met with a mixed reaction from Iraqi politicians.
Talabani had previously praised the sections calling for dialogue with neighboring countries such as Iran, but on Sunday said he objected to including representatives of the former regime in any attempts at reconciliation."
There is no legal entity called Palestine. Thus, how can Israel be occupying this noncountry?
Advocate wrote:There is no legal entity called Palestine. Thus, how can Israel be occupying this noncountry?
Word games and sophistry are not a convincing argument, though it has long been clear that Advocate believes otherwise.
What is it then that Israel is occupying in the West Bank?
By what right has it governed the people there since 1967, and seozed land and property for settlement by Israelis?
Why have the original residents of that territory had no political or basic human rights since their rule by that country began?
The Zionist conception is that there is no Palestine and no Palestinians. They are an inconvenient reality which Israel has been doing its best to expunge since 1948. However, despite the slaughter, the oppression, and the conquest, they are still there.
Susan Akram, professor of law at Boston University wrote this article.
"Palestinian Refugee Rights: Part Two ?- Israel's Legal Maneuvers,"
by Susan Akram
This three-part Information Brief focuses on Palestinian refugee rights, particularly as they relate to "final status" negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Part one, issued on 28 July, described the failure of international legal protection for Palestinian refugees, part two discusses Israel's legal insulation from Palestinian claims, and part three will explore strategies for raising Palestinian refugee claims for property losses under international law.
Introduction:
4 August 2000?-For fifty years and counting, Israel has remained insulated from any serious legal challenge to its original and continued massive violations of human rights against Palestinians, particularly concerning the wholesale dispossession of Palestinian homes and lands. Currently, there is no meaningful mechanism to challenge the widespread and egregious violations of human rights embodied in the original and ongoing cleansing by Israel of the Palestinian population from the area that was once Palestine. This paper suggests why Israel has remained immune to Palestinian challenges for these human rights violations, particularly for its confiscation of Palestinian lands and property.
Israel's Legal Insulation:
As a matter of both internal and international law, Israel has been extraordinarily successful at insulating itself from any significant legal challenge to its confiscation of Palestinian land and property. Although Israel's success in this case is partly attributable to a lack of international political will in enforcing legal standards against wrongful taking of property, it is also due to two other factors. One is Israel's skill in legally maneuvering around its human rights responsibilities, and the second is the lack of sophistication on the Palestinian and Arab side in understanding and utilizing legal mechanisms to advance the Palestinian refugee case.
As a domestic legal matter, Israel's claim to Palestinian property is based on legislation which can be called the "laws of absentee property." These laws reflect a few core concepts. The first is a far-reaching definition of "absentee," which sweeps under its label virtually every Palestinian or Arab residing in Palestine who may have left his or her home and land, however briefly, to escape the fighting or as a result of forced expulsion during the 1948 conflict. Once defined an "absentee," a Palestinian automatically loses all claim of right to ownership or use of his or her property.
The second is the concept of the Custodian of Absentee Property, who automatically acquires sole right, title, and use of all absentee property for the benefit of Israel. Since 1961, another legal fiction was created?-the Israel Land Administration (ILA), an entity which took over the administration of almost all Palestinian refugee land confiscated under the absentee property laws. There were two important consequences of creating the ILA: the state insulated itself from claims by the original Palestinian landowners of wrongful taking and discriminatory application of the laws, and the ILA, as a "non-state" entity, incorporated covenants in every land transaction that prohibited the lease, transfer, or alienation of the property in any way to non-Jews, without incurring the liability to which the state might have been vulnerable. (Such "restrictive covenants" used in the United States by whites to prevent the transfer of land to blacks were declared illegal decades ago). Thus, Palestinian land was transformed virtually overnight from land benefiting its original owners into land that could only be used for the benefit of Jews in perpetuity.
The third is the concept of expropriation for public use, by which Israeli legislation mandates that the only compensation to be paid in case of challenge by the owners of the "absentee property" is value fixed at 1950 prices, and prohibits restitution of the property.
As an international legal matter, Israel has also carefully shielded itself from such claims?-in effect, obtaining huge benefits from the international community while acquiring none of the obligations. Although Israel is signatory to many of the principal human rights conventions, it has failed to incorporate them into its domestic law. It has either submitted reservations that would prevent Palestinian legal challenges on the basis of violations of such conventions, or refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the enforcement bodies of the conventions.
For example, although Israel ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), it has not ratified the First Optional Protocol, which gives the Human Rights Committee jurisdiction to hear individual complaints. Nor has Israel made a declaration under Article 41 of that convention, giving the Human Rights Committee competence over interstate claims in which Israel might be involved. Also, Israel ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD, 1965) in 1979, but has not agreed to be bound by Article 22 which would require it to litigate disputes under the Convention in the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Israel has also refused to give that treaty body, the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, competence over individual complaints against the state under Article 14. Yet Israel has lobbied tirelessly to obtain full membership benefits in the United Nations?-most recently, obtaining membership in the Western European and Others Group. Since the Oslo Accords, Israel has also obtained favorable trade status with European states and obtained additional large amounts of aid and other benefits from both Europe and the U.S.
In sum, there is currently no forum in which Palestinian refugees can make an enforceable claim for their land and properties taken by Israel. Despite the lack of any such forum, there is an urgent need to implement strategies designed to create institutions in which these concerns can be raised and addressed. Normally, claims or challenges concerning real property are made in the courts of the state where the property lies; however, Israel's absentee property laws effectively preclude such claims in Israeli courts.
CORRECTION
Israel did not sign a Geneva convention AGREEING THAT IT WOULD NOT BUILD ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN LAND IT CONQUERED.
What international law says a conquerer cannnot establish settlements for its people in land it conquered?
I AM AMAZED
I am amazed at Israel's ability to limit its responses to attacks on its own civilians to mainly attacks on those it thinks are responsible for those attacks on its own civilians. No doubt Israel has errored frequently in who is and who isn't responsible for those attacks on its own civilians. Also, no doubt it has killed many because of military targeting errors. But how the hell can they better determine and better target who is and is not responsible, while still managing to defend themselves?
If the non-Israeli palestinian arabs had won the 1967 war, they would have exterminated Israel's jews, because prior to the 1967 war they said they would exterminate the jews in Palestine. Since the Israelis won the 1967 war, why haven't they exterminated the non-Israeli palestinian arabs?
Why haven't the non-Israeli palestinian arabs specified their conditions for agreeing that Israel has a right to exist?
Why haven't Hamas and Fatah specified their conditions for them both to have a right to exist?
Is it because the members of Hamas and Fatah are retarded by their own self-hatred?
ican, You are AMAZED, because you know nothing about the Geneva Convention or the UN Resolution.
ican711nm wrote:
Why haven't the non-Israeli palestinian arabs specified their conditions for agreeing that Israel has a right to exist?
For the Palestinians to agree that Israel has a righ to exist would be tantamount to agreeing that their own self-determination is inferior to and subordinate to the self-determination of the Zionists in Palestine. They would be agreeing to their own self-denial and detriment. This has been their grievance since immediately after the British has begun to implement their Balfour Declaration of 1917 through the League of Nations Palestine Mandate in 1922.
ican711nm wrote:CORRECTION
Israel did not sign a Geneva convention AGREEING THAT IT WOULD NOT BUILD ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN LAND IT CONQUERED.
You call it "conquered" land, but even the government of the United States actually seems to call it "occupied" territories - at least according to the
CIA World Factbook:
The CIA World Factbook wrote:West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel continues construction of a "seam line" separation barrier along parts of the Green Line and within the West Bank; Israel withdrew its settlers and military from the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the West Bank in August 2005; Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied (Lebanon claims the Shab'a Farms area of Golan Heights); since 1948, about 350 peacekeepers from the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) headquartered in Jerusalem monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, prevent isolated incidents from escalating, and assist other UN personnel in the region
The consensus seems to be that these territories are indeed occupied territories, and not "conquered land" and therefore somehow part of Israel.
And now that you've had the time to read up on the issue and that you have managed to find out that Israel has indeed signed the Fourth Geneva Convention (even though you've failed so far to admit that you were wrong on that one), you'll have to agree that Israel has indeed signed this part here as well:
Quote:The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
So let's sum this up: Israel has signed an international treaty that makes it illegal to transfer Israeli civilian population into occupied territories. Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights and still occupies those territories. Israel has transferred Israeli civilian population into these occupied territories and continues to do so.
It's really quite evident that Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention.
ican711nm wrote:What international law says a conquerer cannnot establish settlements for its people in land it conquered?
See, ican, you might not like this, but in the wake of WWII, were Nazi Germany "conquered" numerous countries and subsequently deported the local population and "settled" those territories with German civilians, the majority of the nations that drafted the Fourth Geneva Convention probably thought that it would be quite a good idea to have an international agreement that would outlaw this kind of aggressive settlement and annexation of territory.
And I would think that the State of Israel would have been the last one to protest the inclusion of language that made this kind of settlement policy illegal.
It is sad and ironic that not even two decades later, Israel abandoned that policy and now doesn't seem to mind violating a treaty it has signed earlier - now that it is no longer a Jewish population suffering from the occupation and settlement policy of a Nazi dictatorship, but instead Palestinian civilians suffering from the occupation and settlement policy of a Jewish state.
ican continues to push wrong information, because he's a bore and misinformed himself no matter how much evidence is presented. Trying to discuss any issue with ican is a lost cause; he continues to push his ignorance long after many have shown him that he's wrong.
A bore.
The Pals have attacked Jews since before the formal establishment of Israel, and has targeted civilians. There are violations of international accords. In view of this, Israel has every right to do what it has done.
Since there is no political entity that is Palestine, there is no occupation by Israel.
Lebanon's PM feels that the US is not fullfilling its role regarding bringing peace to the ME. I guess he has not read our conservatives' take on this.
Home:Gulf/Arab World
Siniora urges US to lead peace pushPublished: Saturday, 12 May, 2007, 08:46 AM Doha Time
WASHINGTON: Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora yesterday urged the US to take the lead in getting Israel to accept an Arab League initiative that he said was the region's only chance for a lasting peace.
Writing in the New York Times, Siniora also questioned Israel's commitment to peace after a government report criticised its handling of last summer's war with the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, but did not examine its impact on peace prospects.
"Because of its unique role in the world, the US has a responsibility to display leadership and courage in helping the two sides achieve a just and lasting peace," he said.
Leading a Middle East peace initiative is also in the United States' interest, since it "would offer a gateway to reconciliation with the Muslim world during these times of increased divisiveness and radicalism," said Siniora, whose government has US backing.
Siniora criticised Israel for launching a war against Hezbollah last summer after it seized two Israeli soldiers.
"The July war proved that militarism and revenge are not the answer to instability; compromise and diplomacy are," he said. - Reuters
