Jump to content

Israel continues to spit in the face of international law


Recommended Posts

The fact remains that the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel is not internationally reocognized. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are all Occupied Palestinian Territory. It's a simple fact that cannot be disputed.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&PHPSESSID=60e2f3e3d732bbe27c8f55888a311c8f&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4

YTiou are confused. They did not rule that East J was palestinian..they ruled against the wall ...

Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

The reason it is mentioned seperatelt is because Jerusalem is not recognised as Palestinian or Israeli...and Israel according to the ICJ has no rights to build a fence on either occupied palestinian land or East Jerusalem.

As I said before, Jerusalem is corpus separatum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

Nah kuzadd and buffycat and such all had distinct writing styles and arguments. On the other hand, the writings of dub and naomiglover are identical. Also, naomiglover appeared within days of dub disappearing.

You're right. I've gone back and read a few "dub" posts and they are the same, just as you said. Also, a quick search shows that dub often accused people of "babbling" in the same way naomi so often does, along with the "misinformation" accusations, and referring to people "typing," while most people refer to "posting."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. I've gone back and read a few "dub" posts and they are the same, just as you said. Also, a quick search shows that dub often accused people of "babbling" in the same way naomi so often does, along with the "misinformation" accusations, and referring to people "typing," while most people refer to "posting."

You are trying very hard American Woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YTiou are confused. They did not rule that East J was palestinian..they ruled against the wall ...

ICJ - Page 140: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention' as well as Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

more...

Reculling relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are nuIl and void,

They specifically mention that East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most recent 200 posts by dub since 26-August 08
Naomiglover-Joined: 04-September 09

Probably just a coincidence that someone as painfully grating as dub, who posts in the same voice of dub joined days after dub was banned.

Afterall, the antizionist lobby works in rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ICJ - Page 140: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention' as well as Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

more...

Reculling relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are nuIl and void,

They specifically mention that East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory.

If they do, please show it. I realize they feel it is occupied, but from who. You say it is the arabs...I say they don't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Summaries of Advisory Opinions and Orders from The International Court of Justice:

Page 8 and 9 - http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court takes note that differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court recalls that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention;

Here is the court responding to your point in regards to the applicability of the laws:

In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories.

The Court observes that the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occasions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention within the occupied territories. However, according to Israel’s position, that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because, under Article 2, paragraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party involved in an armed conflict. Israel explains that the territories occupied by Israel subsequent to the 1967 conflict had not previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty.

The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties. The object of the second paragraph of Article 2, which refers to “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party”, is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties, but simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

This interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power, regardless of the status of the occupied territories, and is confirmed by the onvention’s travaux préparatoires. The States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, at their Conference on 15 July 1999, approved that interpretation, which has also been adopted by the ICRC, the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Court finally makes mention of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel dated 30 May 2004, to a similar effect.

and finally, in regards to East Jerusalem:

Page 10: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

Edited by naomiglover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

It seems that the US is getting a little more heavy handed with Israel.

In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the recent dispute between Obama and Netanyahu seems to miss the broader issues driving the conflict. Without putting focus on reducing incitement among Palestinians (i.e. the teaching of hate in schools, through media, via public statements, etc), we're never going to achieve a genuine peace based on mutual respect between the two peoples. I know my statement seems to lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of the Palestinians, but I honestly believe that perpetuatiion the culture of hate and violence is the primary driver of this conflict. Debating over the construction of apartment buildings in East Jerusalem misses this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I honestly believe that perpetuatiion the culture of hate and violence is the primary driver of this conflict. Debating over the construction of apartment buildings in East Jerusalem misses this point.

If this is what you 'honestly' believe, then your perspective is severely skewed.

The major problem of this conflict is Israel's refusal to follow international law. They refuse to give an inch to the Palestinians while continuing to annex more of their land. That is the problem. Everything else is a symptom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am assuming from Dancer's silence that he has accepted that the International Court has re-confirmed/ruled that East Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

I'm glad we could get to the bottom of that.

You assume too much, I haven't had time to read the snippets you have parsed...suffice to say no one was complianing when Jordan, with the force of arms took east jerusalem....nor do you cmplain that palestinains want what is not theirs...Jerusalem should beliong to the UN...

Never the less, do I support Israel building apartments on land that Israel has bought and paid for?

No I do not. Israel should immediately put the land for sale so that condos could be built and sold on the open market to who ever can afford them. Not enough luxary housing in east jerusalem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume too much, I haven't had time to read the snippets you have parsed

Get back to me when you have read it. It shouldn't take too long. It's right there in the writing and the link has been provided to you from the ICJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The major problem of this conflict is Israel's refusal to follow international law. They refuse to give an inch to the Palestinians while continuing to annex more of their land. That is the problem. Everything else is a symptom.

Yes. That's the major problem. Israel's refusing to follow international law. Palestine's refusal to give an inch while Hamas continues to blow up innocent people is just a minor irritant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is what you 'honestly' believe, then your perspective is severely skewed.

The major problem of this conflict is Israel's refusal to follow international law. They refuse to give an inch to the Palestinians while continuing to annex more of their land. That is the problem. Everything else is a symptom.

There may be some legitimacy to the argument that Palestinian territorial grievances manifested themselves, in part, towards the prevalence of hatred towards Israel, its allies, Jews, and many other groups within their society - which of course has lead to suicide bombings and other reprehensible acts. The disturbing messages that are prevalent in Palestinian (as well as Arab-Muslim) society include dehumanization of Jews, Christians, friends of Israel, the West, celebration of terrorism and martyrdom, advocacy of violence, misrepresentations of history (i.e. Holocaust denial), etc.... If Israel were to simply comply with some of the "international law" you and other claim it is violating (i.e. retreating to pre-1967 borders, relinquishing control of EJ, etc), these messages would not disappear. Sadly, these messages and this culture perpetuates itself, it's a vicious circle. What you're ignoring, however, is the broader subscription to this ideology and the terrorism is advocates among the Arab-Muslim population. We've seen this type of violence occur, more often than not, in parts of the world and circumstances far removed from Israel - i.e. bombings in Madrid and London, the Beslan school massacre, 9/11, Munich Olympics 1972, Bali bombings, Mumbai bombings, etc... This clearly paints a picture of the primary driver of this violence being ideological, and not territorial.

Your simple mind views the hatred and violence that arises from the Palestinian (and Arab-Muslim) population against Israel/Jews (and perceived allies) as the natural result of real and imagined Israeli transgressions. This conflict is hardly as simple as a chicken-and-the-egg scenario. Equating the problems I've outlined above regarding the disturbing messages that are commonplace among Palestinian (as well as Arab-Muslim) society as simply "symptoms" marginalizes how significant these drivers are towards the perpetuation of this violence.

For illustrative purposes it'd be simple to list of endless examples of other peoples who have had legitimate claims of dispossession who didn't resort to violence, but what's the point of even bringing them up? You're hardly an honest participant in this debate, nor do you really care about the affected parties. If this conflict is to be resolved, you'll have nothing else to rant on about - all your superficial knowledge about this conflict will be for naught! What a tragedy that would be for your thin sense of identity.

Edited by Gabriel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no law against a woman being president; women aren't barred from running or winning. So your example doesn't fly. Furthermore, there's a huge difference between not having a woman leader and women's rights being almost completely repressed by law, too often to the point of violence against women being accepted and deemed justified.

How you could compare women's place in society in these Islamic nations to not having a woman president is rather mind boggling.

I totally agree with what you said....but the essential of my example is the most of women in both society accept the prejudiced place just because they used to it. That makes them no difference, at least doesn't makes them too much difference.

Since Islamic world has become a major issue to America, to understand what they think and by which way they think is vital important to Americans. You can't understand why the women in some Islamic countries willingly accept their place in their society because you judged it by the criterion you used to, not they used to. If you read this Women's suffrage in the United States and try to understand why the most of great..great grandmothers of Americans willingly accepted their place in the society then, it would help you to understand those Muslim women nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In somewhere of the world, there still are some people lives in matriarchal society. If a female member of these primitive tribes come to this forum, she will also wonder how on earth these civilized women could put up with not having a female president over 200 years....... :rolleyes:

Name one matriarchal society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one matriarchal society.

In Yunnan Province of southwest China there is a small minority ethnic tribe called Mosuo. They still live in matriarchal socoety nowadays. In the society, women are in charge in the families and do the most of jobs, children follow their mothers' family names and are raised by their mother's families.

Men's main function in the society is, wishing all conservative "family value" believing friends here will not go mad, just to produce kids for women IMO. You can Google the keyword Mosuo and find a lot of stories.

Mosuo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Yunnan Province of southwest China there is a small minority ethnic tribe called Mosuo. They still live in matriarchal socoety nowadays. In the society, women are in charge in the families and do the most of jobs, children follow their mothers' family names and are raised by their mother's families.

Men's main function in the society is, wishing all conservative "family value" believing friends here will not go mad, just to produce kids for women IMO. You can Google the keyword Mosuo and find a lot of stories.

Mosuo

Oh snap. I'm impressed. Let's play again - name ANOTHER matriarchal society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...