Gaza Agreement implemented.>>>MOD WARNING<<<

Again- do you have any knowledge of the international laws of occupation ? If not then I won't be wasting my time relating how Israel has violated them. You'll have to collect your information when a conversation eventuates with somebody who does.

You haven't even got that right. I said that the occupation is illegal. I didn't mention the Geneva Conventions. Now you're going to tell me that I did- when I didn't- and I'm going to get bored with the lack of substance.

 

moon, et al,

Answer the question!

(COMMENT)

Where in the law does it say the "occupation" is illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Cart before horse again. ' Occupation ' is not the normal state . It's a phenomenon. As such there are laws which govern it and allow it under certain circumstances and according to those laws. Without knowing what those laws are any discussion on their violation is impossible. Mouthing ' the Geneva Conventions say it's legal ' is only one step up the hill.

You fancy yourself as a bit of a ' beagle', RoccoR. You want to fill in where ..er...BroadwayBaby has...er...refused ?

 

you don't understand international law.

when a nation conquers land in any way, they become the legal Occupier.

they certainly become the legal Occupier when they did not start the war with the state from which they conquered the land.

 

You don't understand international law either- the difference being that my knowledge is improving. I have no doubts whatseoever that your understanding of your own term- ' legal Occupier ' - would strike anybody with even a smigeon of knowledge of international law as moderately funny. It certainly does me. So be a good chap and don't burden anybody with it.
All you need to know is that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal. I hope that someday your knowledge of international law- and human nature- expands enough for you to understand that.

 

The 4th Geneva Conventions says that occupations are legal.

 

In a sort of home-spun wishful-thinking interpretation stripped of any detail , precedent and other supportive evidence you've even managed to misunderstand that.

 

He is absolutely correct, there is not a word in international law and/or Geneva Conventions declaring occupations illegal. In fact they are heavily regulated which makes them perfectly legal, laws don't regulate illegal activity, they ban it.

Lest we forget that in your and your Israel-hate radical buddies' minds Tel Aviv is occupied territory as well.

 

if Occupations are illegal, why the (*)(*)(*)(*) did Palestine just sign the 4th Geneva Conventions??????????

 

I didn't say that there weren't circumstances under which international law tolerated the concept of occupation. I didn't even say that your own misconception of 'occupation' was illegal- although we are now at a point wherein you have the opportunity to state what your concept of ' occupation ' is.

Nobody with any sense is going to argue that a state of occupation is the norm. As I said previously, it's a phenomenon and laws exist to oversee this phenomenon.. They exist to ensure that the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation are not violated.
What we need to know now is what those laws are.

See if you can eliminate potty-mouth edits and childish emoticons from what you think passes as a response.

 

moon, et al,

I agree. That the status of most territories is not normally in "occupation." That status of the territories is set by the conditions; normally that of foreign rule. But it appears to me that you are mixing two distinct issue:

• The legality of the establishment of Occupation
• The Proper Administration of an Occupation, once established.

This leads to the question on the question: Which are you debating.

As I said earlier, the ICRC GCIV does not address the criteria for whether or not an Occupation is established legally. The ICRC GCIV sets the standard under which an occupation exists and then the protocols for the proper administration.

REFERENCE: Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory

(COMMENT)

In Posting #486 (which you readily dismissed in Posting #487), is the basic criteria for when the experts agree when an Occupation exists.

(COMMENT)

This suggests that your discussion concerns the Proper Administration of an Occupation, once established.

(COMMENT)

I do not consider "Occupation" to be a "phenomenon" in any sense of the word. Almost, in any case of confrontation were decisive ground battles are fought, the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) moves in favor of the successful opposition force (OPFOR). When the FEBA moves over and beyond the international boundaries of another nation, in pursuit to maintain contact with the OPFOR, the area overrun becomes "Occupied." This is a very common occurrence; not a "phenomenon." If, in the case of the West Bank, there is a "phenomenon," then it is such in terms of the duration of the "occupation." The scope, nature and magnitude of such is generally (but not always) driven by the persistence of the enemy under "occupation;" and the intentions of the Occupation Force. The "intentions" should be demonstrated in the adherence of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations (A/RES/25/2625):

• States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

As to the second point, the matter of "Mouthing ' the Geneva Conventions say it's legal," --- I think you will find I said that the GCIV "is silent on the issue of what constitutes the establishment of a legal occupation."

(COMMENT)

Please forgive me. I have no idea what this means. What I am is what I stated in my Forum Basic Info.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

moon - when you are in a hole, stop digging.

 

I'll take your advice. Let me know when you need a new spade.

 

RoccoR- your post , #486, was dismissed in part because it contains the preposterous implication that Palestine isn't under occupation.
Similarly, post #511 evidences your belief that occupation is a normal state and not unusual.

Both these enormous dollops of pro-occupation absurdity have to be addressed prior to any meaningful discussion of the illegality of the occupation of Palestine.
As BroadwayBaby failed to establish any credible authority then so must you improve on that. One the other hand, if your contributions are going to feature the positing of absurdities............

 

moon, et al,

Now you are just avoiding the issues at hand.

(COMMENT)

I cited the each supposition.

I applied the standing description used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expert meeting (2012) on the issues of when an Occupation Begins and when an Occupation Ends. I also used the quotations from the same source.

I did not, at any time, say that "Occupation" was the normal condition of a "undefined" territory; but that it wasn't unusual for it to occur.

If you don't believe the ICRC standards and application of material pertaining to "occupation" are credible, then simply state your parameters for credibility.

I don't think that any of the views posted are "absurdities" at all. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I stand by my Posting #486 and Posting #511. In fact, the first sentence of Posting #511 states: "That the status of most territories is not normally in "occupation." The only additional clarification I could make is the insertion of the word "Palestinian" in front of "territories" in the second sentence --- so it might read: That status of the ["Palestinian"] territories is set by the conditions; normally that of foreign rule. But as we were talking about the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt), I didn't think it was necessary.

You will also note that in Posting #468, I stated - using the ICRC standard - which areas were occupied and which were not:

So I find your objections completely without merit.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Too bad the International law and courts are not run by bloggers huh Moon ?

Good luck applying to dismantle Israel in Hague

 

Too bad they aren't run by State sponsored terrorists and illegal occupiers, you may well add.

RoccoR;

Nevertheless, merit they have. In short- do you accept, like the Israeli courts , the ICJ , the United Nations and most world States that Palestine is Occupied Territory ?

Secondly, do you accept that occupation is not the normal state of relations ?

Refusal places you well at the invisible end of the eccentric legal spectrum and dictates the manner in which I respond to that which you post.

Oh, and don't take a couple of rounds of Zionist applause as any worthwhile endorsement of your contrary position.

 

I think a certain satellite of earth has caught a tiger by the tail....time to let go while the damage is not terminal.

RevA

 

Wishful thinking from the christian side of the Zionist ethnic cleansing programme.

 

You ever notice the same people who are happy to rubberstamp and support Israel illegally conquering and stealing land are the ones whining and crying about Russia stealing Crimea? Like Kerry, Obama and their supporters.

Better yet, what do Israel always say about why they deserve this Jewish homeland? They have been a relegated, scapegoated, stateless people, wandering the world for thousands of years, persecuted, with no country of their own. So they deserve this country.

Meanwhile, they are actively subjecting the Palestinians to the exact same fate.. They oppose and fight tooth and nail to deny Palestinians a country or national identity, they steal their land and kick them off it, persecute them, drive them away as homeless refugees, never to return, so they can wander the desert instead?

It's hard to take these people seriously with all their hypocrisy.

 

False..., if what you said was true the Arabs wouldnt have asked a single state in 1948 that includes Jordan, why would the "struggeling" poor nation of Palestine ever agree to that and forefit their indipendance ?? were the Arabs Zionists???

much more likley you got the whole thing wrong....

 

Hmm, did you ever notice how some people (not all) who whine here for years about Israel's defensive wars, all of a sudden find every absurd excuse in the book to justify Russia's unprovoked invasion, annexation, Russian nationalism, racism, chauvinism, fascism, barbarism....


You people hate the US and Israel, that's the only motivating factor of all your views, you are siding with every murderer, dictator, aggressor on the planet as long as he is on your anti-American, anti-Israel side....

 

And preferly all the above in one person.....

 

The occupation itself was ruled illegal and mandated to stop way back in 1967, mere days after Israel conquered it. This was in UNSC resolution 242, which Israel must abide by as a signatory to the UN Charter. Israel themselves specifically agreed to it a bit later, echoing its commentary, which said that Israel withdrawing from the land was NECESSARY in order for the establishment of a just and lasting peace. They were not stupid when they wrote it. Everybody knew that negotiating a peace would be impossible so long as a provocative occupation were maintained. Israel were to return to their own lands, and from THAT position, negotiate a peace. Israel's requirement to comply is NOT precluded by the other side's compliance or lack of, though Israel claimed it was. Even so, the other parties have abided by now, So Israel should have withdrawn. Instead, they unilaterally and arbitrarily add new strings and conditions that were NEVER there in the first place, in order to not comply, like they must change their government, get Hamas to change their charter (Hamas didn't even exist in 1967 and was never a party, recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state (dignify apartheid) even though they themselves will never recognize Palestionian nationality (which is against the law) etc. Israel themselves declared they will NEVER give back any land they've taken so far, or even stop taking more land.

Even if the occupation were legal, it is criminally administered. It is against the law to transfer your own population into occupied territory, drive residents off their own property, steal water and land and attack food supplies, impede the people's right to free movement, trade etc. Shoot dead unarmed protestors with lethal force etc. Israel claimed they will never stop the occupation before an agreement is reached, meaning they declare they get to decide themselves when, or even if, they ever stop occupying. As though the choice were EVER granted to them. They unilaterally suspended negotiations themselves.

 

The resolution mandated the steps to be taken by both warrring parties to end the occupation, it did not have a single word of its legality or lack of thereof which by default made it legal, it merely provided a path to end it...Israel indeed accepted, the Arab world vehemently rejected the binding UN resolution, thus the Arab world, not Israel broke international law. Nice try though LOL

Israel eventually implemented the resolution with two willing participants - Egypt and Jordan, giving up 99% of the land Israel captured in the defensive war of 1967.