ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Israel did not sign the fourth Geneva convention.

The sky is green.

0 Replies

Quote:

Israel did not sign the fourth Geneva convention.

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Quote:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Dem. Rep.)
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Dominica
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran (Islamic Rep.of)
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea (Dem.People's Rep.)
Korea (Republic of)
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lao People's Dem.Rep.
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova (Republic of)
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro (Republic of)
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Niger
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia (Republic of)
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Tanzania (United Rep.of)
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Reservation / Declaration text

Quote:

Reservation made upon signature and maintained upon ratification:
Mr KAHANY, Delegate of Israel to the European Office of the United Nations and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, made the following declaration:

"In accordance with instructions received from my Government, I shall sign the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War without any reservation. But in the case of each of the other three Conventions, our signature will be given with reservations the purport of which is as follows:

(1) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.

"Subject to the reservation that, while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems of the Convention, Israel will use the Red Shield of David as the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical services of her armed forces."

(2) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.

"Subject to the reservation that, while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems of the Convention, Israel will use the Red Shield of David on the flags, armlets and on all equipment (including hospital ships), employed in the medical service."

(3) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

"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."

SOURCE: Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol.I, Federal Political Department, Berne, p.348.

*****
Declaration relating to the declaration made upon accession by Democratic Yemen:

"The Government of Israel takes note that by declarations dated 10 February 1977, and received by the Swiss Government on 25 May 1977, the Popular Democratic Republic of Yemen adhered to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the protection of war victims.

"The said instruments were accompanied by a declaration of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the said Conventions. The said declaration cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon the Popular Democratic Republic of Yemen under general international law or under particular treaties."

SOURCE: UNTS, Vol.1080, 1978, p.370.

*****

[A similar declaration to the previous declaration was made by Israel, relating to the declaration made upon accession by Kuwait]

0 Replies

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."

0 Replies

There is no legal entity called Palestine. Thus, how can Israel be occupying this noncountry?

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Susan Akram, professor of law at Boston University wrote this article.

0 Replies

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?

0 Replies

ican, You are AMAZED, because you know nothing about the Geneva Convention or the UN Resolution.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know