Nonsense. Provide your evidence that these "rockets" have been (and still are) the main issue that has been hindering the attainment of peace. As of now, all we have is your say-so.
It says "armed aggression". Unarmed peaceful protesters on their own land don't count. And Israel wasn't defending itself as this was Palestinian land. But you need to quote the exemptions you claim exist. But you claimed all Palestinians knew. You even claim it later in this post. Obviously this is not true. Quote where this exemption is made please. It doesn't matter. You can complain like they're breaking the rules. EVEN IF they are doing something wrong, it still doesn't make lethal force justified. And a "warning" being issued does not magically grant you new rights to break the law. Are you saying they thought the flag was a bomb? Give me a break. Why'd they shoot all the other people too? Were they all looking like they were carrying bombs? Well I guess if that bulldozer driver didn't notice Rachel Corrie there even though they were arguing with her, these IOF must have bad eyesight. That didn't say anything about any "no go zones". Not NEARLY as big as the difference between trespassing and launching an armed attack. Forget blinking.. Any rule. IOF aren't allowed to transfer their colonists onto occupied territories. That's a crime. But they do it. So it would be justified for a Palestinian to shoot the settlers then. They're where they shouldn't be. Right? Even if they did, why need lethal force? I mean, not even teargas? Why? And prove this "threatened use of force".. How UNARMED PEOPLE could pose a threat to the big bad IOF is beyond me, but since you're saying.. To PROTEST the fence. Where else to go to exercise your free right to peaceful protest against a fence other than the fence? If Palestinians shot and killed unarmed Israeli colonists, would you accept it if they said they thought they had a bomb? So is calling somebody names. They're legal terms. Hostilities and armed combat, that's what the laws refer to. It's not a hostile act. Israel do many things without permission. In fact, let's say that your silly idea that simply doing something mean like trespassing violates the cease fire, even without firing a shot.. Fine.. What about Israel's obligations, and their doing things without permission? They did that even before. Have a look: "Opening the crossings and facilitating the movement of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents' free movements and targeting residents in border areas." It SPECIFICALLY STATES that Israel are FORBIDDEN from restricting their movement in the border areas! The law said in all areas. They may NOT restrict free movement. So the fact there's a restriction there that you refuse them to go on means you are indeed restricting their movement! This is like saying "Russia never infringes on the freedom the press. Russian people are fully allowed to read those books which the government hasn't banned! Besides the border. Roads, walls, checkpoints all over the place.. Palestinians are kept physically apart by force from other Palestinians, so they can't see their family, and it hinders the right to free association, plus makes trade nearly impossible. THAT is a breach of the ceasefire, and the law. What do you have to say about that? It doesn't matter if it's necessary or not; it's their right. And it was a peaceful protest. That's the reason. They were protesting the fence. And it was not referring to any "restricted areas".. You're bringing this concept up and it's mythological. There's no such provisions/exemptions there, not in the ceasefire (which states the opposite) nor multiple other laws. Otherwise show us.
Quite the contrary, what you write above is just akin your host country past performance in India, in Africa and a host of other countries.... But the UK at the time was an <IMPERIALIST ENTITY> which is in fact very correct. Israel on the other hand is in its own realm surrounded by murderous Arabs and <ALIEN SQUATTERS>! Powerful Truth on Peace in the M.E. http://bit.ly/SXsma3 Perhaqps the future PM of Israel http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/b...finitely-be-the-next-prime-minister-of-israel
Article 51 does not contain that quote. Please revise. They didn't? Bad on me for surmising that even though most did that the government of the Palestinians would have ensured all knew. So their own government let them down then. Once again the government of the Palestinians has screwed it up as everybody knows it is a no go zone, even the guys who got shot as the government even said they knew when they said; "A Palestinian security source confirmed the move to Reuters, saying "the instruction is not to allow people to approach the border fence" So now you can go blame this whole mess on Hamas where the blame lies to begin with. Article 51. The warning shots were a courtesy as all were SUPPOSED to know it was a restricted area. I guess you have given the IDF soldiers extraordinary powers of x ray vision and permitted the Palestinians authority to assault a wall in a restricted area when and where they please. In order to make this legal please tell us when and where the peace treaty was signed, who signed it and when the transfer of authority took place making the entire area Palestinian land and complete it with the survey results and dates of when this occurred because as far as I know there are no defined borders in this war zone. They say that nothing "shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against" them and, the wall and the surrounding land is part of that defense. Approaching a No Go Zone and refusing to move away when warned with shots is strange behavior for a peaceful person don't you think Happy? I mean, if you walked down the street and a police officer pointed his gun at you and fired three warning shots directly over your head would you just smile and wave and continue or stop what you were doing? If they can show that they have a nation with defined borders and are under a declaration of war which Israel has made on them then that would wash but it has not occurred rather the Palestinians have declared war on Israel and as such Israel has the right of self defense and the right to set up outposts in order to ensure their nation is not assaulted by crazies bent on their destruction. The bulk of terrorist attacks that have occurred did so without the terrorists showing weapons prior to the attacks. They often use unarmed people as cover either willingly or unwillingly. This is the main reason why the entire area around the wall is a restricted area. A peoples at war and having lost the initiative may protest with the Red Cross if they wish however, to enter a war zone places them in the category of combatant. And part of combat is defense which is what the wall and surrounding area is. So in your mind Israel should take the wall down and then allow unrestricted movement for anybody to move all around the border area for how far? Ten miles, a thousand miles what? I believe the term 'border area' refers to the area outside the already (200 stated No Go Zone. Don't make war on Israel as they did. Planting a terrorist organization flag on a wall in which it is well know that there is a lethal force application for all those who violate that area is a protest? No wonder you allude to Rachel Corrie, the person who violated all safety rules while in the vicinity of heavy equipment and then her pals cried that it was murder when she was killed. People who work around heavy equipment die even when they are in a non combat area and have radio comms with the operator much less an untrained hippy wearing a low visibility stained safety vest while running radically around an armored D9 with slits for view ports. Well that's what they say now. Why on earth would ignoring warning shots while knowingly in a restricted area be of val;ue as a protest as they all knew protestors were not permitted there. So I can assume you are going to tell us that the ceasefire meant that Palestinians could go anywhere, Tel Aviv, Tiberius, the Knesset, Visit the PM's home, take a flight from Tel Aviv airport, ride a few buses and pretty much go wherever they wanted as all those areas are within the vicinity of the wall. I mean, since we are going to ignore the No Go Zones which were effective in 2008 why not just ignore all borders and say Palestinians can go anywhere even though they are committed to the destruction of Israel?
These posts keep getting longer, buy you repeat yourself but dodge parts. So until caught up, I'll go one at a time. First thing I asked you. Why couldn't they use tear gas or rubber bullets, like usual protest response? And you ignore the part about the interior restrictions. I pointed out how that was illegal. How is that for "defense". It's not at your borders. And free movement is within your territory or country. Nationalility, or lack of, and state status, or lack of, or occupation status etc. are NOT applicable to consider. It doesn't matter. EVERYBODY is covered no matter WHAT the political circumstances they find themselves in. You see, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that clearly. They KNEW that sometimes populations could be victimized, or fall through the cracks etc. and wanted to make sure they still kept their own human rights. That's why all Israeli excuses fail. It's SOLID LAW that Israel may not place restrictions on Palestinian movement within their territories. And also like the Geneva, they can't build settlements. And you make up your own exemptions and little rules why you don't think. Made up and uncited.
It's a war zone not city hall. It is occupied territory during time of war. A war not of Israel's declaration. If they deem they need another ten miles of No Go Zone it would be quite legal as well. When the Palestinians and Israel sign a peace treaty you are more than welcome to make this statement valid. Article 51; "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. " Nothing. Not mock fake protests, Hamas flags in No Go Zones which everybody knows about including the shills sent to test defenses such as your faux victims.
The basic fact of the matter is that under Resolution 242 Israel is already breaking the law, not only by continuing to occupy territory to which it has no right-including the government colluding with the settlers and moving them into the Occupied Territories-but because of that illegality anything else Israel does as far as its actions against the Palestinians is concerned therefore also has no legitimacy. Oh, and by the way, there is no war. There is an illegal occupation by Israel after the conclusion of hostilities and quite legitimate defence against the occupation by the Palestinians.
You have no clue. First of all you are confusing UN resolutions with international law. They are not the same. Secondly, in international law there are no "Palestinian territories" for the simple reason that there isn't and never has been a Palestinian State. The territories you are referring to belonged to Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank) before 1967, when these countries lost control over them to Israel because they were militarily defeated. Egypt and Jordan have indeed concluded peace treaties with Israel. Syria hasn't, nor have several other Arab countries.
The Palestinian people are under belligerent occupation as defined by the Hague conventions of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Palestinian people, whether as a state or as individuals, have rights under those laws. Those rights are enshrined in International Law, and Israel has obligations to the Palesinian people under the law which it has serially dismissed as irrelevant. This might help: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/int_law.html
Could you point out when these territories were ever part of a "Palestinian State". Was Egyptian control of Gaza and Jordanian control of the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 also "illegal". Or are you just blinded by irrational anti-Israel propaganda?
The Geneva and Hague conventions as I made clear in my post, confer these human rights onto everyone, irrespective of their status. These rights are sacred under international law. Israel, by becoming signatory to the UN Charter, agreed to abide by those same laws and conventions. It does not. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html
Yes, these conventions are in part designed to regulate the rights and obligations of the regular military forces of a country occupying the territory of another country. Because that is something which is not "illegal" but the natural outcome of military conflict between states. In the meantime there is no Palestinian state and no Palestinan regular forces. The only ones who could claim these territories are their occupied territory are Egypt and Jordan, but both have renounced these territories, so technically they do not belong to any country. Until their final status is settled they remain under the sovereignty of the legitimate state that exerts effective control over them.
Nonsense. Human rights refers to all people, military or otherwise and irrespective of the status of their nation or otherwise. There is no distinction under the law. For example, until shortly after the First World War (1919), you couldn't find Poland on a map of Europe. It did not exist as a state. Those Polish people, nevertheless, enjoyed the same rights under Hague as anyone else.
You have no idea what you're talking about and are conflating International law, the law of war, human rights, etc. You don't even understand what treaties and conventions are about.
I'm sorry, but I have made it as clear as I can-including links to Geneva, International Law and the UN Charter. If you're too lazy to even begin to figure out how they are interlinked then I'm afraid the issue lies with you. Of course you have the opportunity to disprove anything I have written. Telling me "you have no idea" doesn't really help your credibility or support your position.
All you've proven is that you understand nothing. You're just throwing some terms around without having any grasp of what they mean and how they relate or not relate to the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.
Well then as I said you have the opportunity to disprove or challenge anything I have written as it pertains to Israel/Palestine. Simply saying that I understand nothing doesn't work I'm afraid. Back up your assertion and, if I am wrong, I'll happily concede.
You haven't written anything other than some simplistic statements, coupled with some references that demonstrate you have no idea about what international law is, what human rights are, what the history of the region is, etc.
You've had your opportunity and you didn't take advantage of it. At this point our conversation is over.
"Genocide?" A population that grows at a greater rate than most industrial nations is being killed pell mell ala "genocide?' I swear, Israel has killed billions upon billions of Palestinians. It's murder on a galactic scale I tellya! 242 is chapter 6 non binding so it can't be in violation of it under any reality and, to further break your wet dream nowhere does 242 give Palestinians territory nor does it define any land as theirs. And neither does Palestine until 2012 so telling us that 242 (1967) refers to land other than Egypt and Syria is reading rubbish into a non binding resolution. He knows exactly what he is talking about. It's a genocide for God's sake, trillions of Palestinians are being killed from Pluto to Alfa Centauri even though their population grows at twice the rate of most industrial nations and life expectancy is one of the highest in the world.
Yeah, we've heard it all before and, guess what? Nobody is listening to Israel's protestations anymore.
Nothing in the "present charter".. So where is an exemption made in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? And like I said, preventing free movement is not "defense" especially the deep interior restrictions, which are against the law. It said: ARMED AGGRESSION.. Restriction of unarmed people going to see their family, or perhaps running in a race for peace like Israel just did, is not defense against "armed attack" any way you slice it.
Nobody is denying that the West Bank is under military occupation and will remain as such so long as the conflict comes to a permanent end, until such time restricting the movements of the enemy population is in complete accordance with international law.
