Israeli President; Peres: Recognition of Jewish state 'unnecessary'

The "...in time of war" part of the Geneva Convention quote intrigues me. Which war is Israel currently involved in, and when was the formal (legal) declaration?

 

Therein Snake is a key element to discussing the Middle East conflict. Technically, Syria, Lebanon, even Iraq,all the Arab League nations are in a declared state of war against Israel since1949 but its now really symbolic. Of course Jordan and Egypt with their separate agreements are not.

Then we have say a group like Hamas. Its technically the government of Gaza as it was democratically elected. However part of it is a military unit that does not follow any war conventions and has said so. So it falls outside the 4th Geneva convention when it engages in armed operations.

If it was an official army of the state, its attacking civilians whether they be Palestinians or Israelis which it has done would violate that 4th Geneva Convention.

Lebanon has Hezbollah another confusing legal situation.As it is not the official armed forces of Lebanon it acts as an armed militia within the country and runs a state within a state by defacto force. It told the UN it would disarm and was only armed to defend Lebanon against Israel while Israel was within Lebanon. When Israel withdrew, Hezbollah refused to follow its agreement with the UN to disarm and technically while one of its components has elected officials, the other element is in fact an armed force that violates domestic Lebanese laws and has indicated it will not follow any international laws and thus it engages in Syria and has engaged in Iraq, Gaza and against Israel.

Syria itself has many armed factions fighting its current government and non subscribe to the Geneva convention as you know and the Syrian government openly violates the Geneva Convention with its own civilians and attacks into Lebanon.

Then we have Israel. Technically it does not internationally occupy the West Bank as it was never a sovereign nation so under international law its not an occupying force as envisioned by the convention but Israel did set a precedent it can not legally argue its way out of that by leaving the armed forces permanently on the ground it becomes a defacto government armed force that must act within the scope of the Geneva convention and there is of course debate whether it has used excessive force that would violate that convention. There is also debate whether its use of white phosphorous weapons (as are used by most armed forces today) constants cruel and unusual measures-that is a problem that also applies to the US,Soviets, China, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Sudan who have all used white phosphorous weapons which when they come into contact with skin burn right through but slowly.

Then we have Fatah Hawks an armed force that clearly indicates it follows no international laws and the Palestinian Authority that has indicated it has no conventional army but does have a police force that has beaten and tortured Palestinians in clear violation of the Geneva convention.

The US violated the Geneva convention in Iraq, the Soviets in Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq both violated the Geneva convention in wars against each other and the Kurds. The Soviets and Turks have violated the convention with the Kurds and in Chechnya and China has widely violated the convention in Muslim areas of China and of course Tibet. Sudan violated the convention repeatedly in its civil war against its South/

Morsi when President of Egypt used armed forces to attack Coptic Christians in violation of the convention. Now the convention was created to define war rules between nations at war and with uninformed armed forces. It was not drafted envision armed forces being used as political tools or occupation forces or engaged in civil wars against their own civilians and it certainly was not drafted for terrorist units.

So its a huge problem.The international law at the current time has not come up with a treaty nor will it ever on terrorism or add to the convention as to conduct by armed forces when acting as police.

Its needed but its a moot point. For it to apply you would need the terrorist groups to sign on as signatories and they never would not to mention the fact international law is signed by sovereign nations not terrorist cells.

Thus we have this on-going gap in law or convention but what we do know is wherever you look whether it be the Middle East or the world terrorism and armed force response goes on in endless cycles with all kinds of accusations being thrown back and forth and often those accusations are referenced to partisan political views.

As a lawyer I don't look at law from a political perspective. So for example when I look at the West Bank, I don't misuse the legal term for occupation.

However as a jurist I would state that Israel violated international law, not when it entered the West Bank but in fact when it set up civilian government for Israelis on the West Bank but Israeli military administration of Palestinians on the West Bank. That is in fact what it violated under international law if we want to be legally correct and that is a huge problem for Israel because under international law it can not do that or at least is not supposed to.

It has to either annex the entire West Bank and make it Israeli as Jordan once annexed it, or it must administer Isaeli civilians with the same army administration. Either that or it must unilaterally annex those portions where Israelis are civilly administered and withdraw from the rest.

Those are the existing legal options and they don't exactly mesh with current popular political opinion however actual law and politics are not necessarily the same thing although often mixed and fused with people believing the law is to reflect political will. In reality though the law may not. It can be quite arbitrary until someone redrafts it.

Israel can not and has indicated it does not want to annex the West Bank because that would mean it has to grant Palestinians citizenship undermining the Israeli state's wish to be Jewish. It would make the population majority Muslim and because Israel is democratic, it would then vote itself out of being Jewish. So it knows that.

Israel does not even want to remain where Israeli settlers are now. Its interest has always been Jerusalem but not anywhere else. Jerusalem it considers a sacred religious centre that was trashed and humiliated by the Jordanians and then Palestinian Authority. Its a highly emotional issue as to how its religious sites were treated coupled with a very intense memory of synagogues burned and Jews slaughtered in East Jerusalem prior to 1967.

Its further complicated by the fact that the majority of land in the old sector of Jerusalem currently is owned by land title by a plethora of Christian churches each with its own title all recognized by Israel and not recognized by the Palestinian Authority.

Israel in fact pays rent for its Knesset having been built on a Christian church's land because the very Zionism some call on this forum racist. requires it to respect Christian canon law and Christian land title rights.

In a comprehensive peace settlement Israel wants out of the West Bank. Its soldiers do not want to be there. Civilians were first sent in as early warning posts for incoming terrorists but today the security wall and satellite technology replaces that need. Israel would and will prepare a unilateral withdraw behind the security walls and concentrate on East Jerusalem which will actually be the source of heated discussions as you have Jewish land titles, Christian land titles and Palestinian land titles all preceding the creation of Israel,Jordan and the Palestinian authority and taking precedent and that would require some sort of international arbitration panel to deal with.

Israel, Jordan and the PA, behind the closed doors and media, have already began preliminary planning for a mutual water project and an examination of the electric grid, oil pipelines for the three areas and environmental assessments as to current damage from sewage and garbage which threatens all three nations.

So all I can tell you is at one level there is wide spread problems with terrorists acting outside the law, unstable regimes with civil wars and a huge gap in conventional international and domestic security laws all violating human rights in all the nations of the Middle East some it tied to the West Bank disputes but much of it involved with inter Muslim disputes.

I can tell you as a lawyer I do despair it may never resolve politically but I do know from a practical perspective needs such as water, sewage, a place to live and food to eat in conflict zones, find a way to force themselves to be resolved despite the terror and war and break down in government level communications because people, the people, the average nobody on the street no one thinks of, they find each other out of necessity and come up with solutions out of necessity.

From the same turmoil and despair come people who rise out of this darkness and share, and work together.

That may sound quaint to some, but I lived it. I was part of some of those initiatives that may have been silenced by terrorism and reactions to it, but those grass roots operations are still there and the people on both sides still reach out to each other sharing water, food, clothing, etc. on a charitabl level. You may not read it in the media, but its there.

 

Yes Marlowe I think someone like you would need to leave your world of hatred and name calling and smell burned flesh to understand it matters little whether we call it Palestinian or Israeli. You clearly are so entrenched in your need to be angry and hateful you could not understand the point I was making and once again brought it back to your own feelings and how smelling a kidney is offensive to you. Its not about you and never was.

It is about the very children you expropriate for political name calling and accusations. They blow up and die the exact same way. They suffer the exact same way. It matters little you only see Palestinian children and not Israeli children-they both exist and they both have equally suffered and I saw it and yes sometimes we need to pull people from you from their privileged environments out of their worlds of affluence to smell death before they talk about it and throw it about as if you understand it and lived it.

I know the civilian and soldiers who live with it. You want to equate IDF soldiers as monsters. I know the men and women who wear those uniforms.

I know the mothers of Palestinian children who despair their young boys will get caught up in hatred and die violently. I know the parents of people who have died on both sides.

I watched the Rabbia put the body pieces in bags and look around trying to identify body parts and that was the irony-you don't know who is who when the bomb goes off. It smells and looks the same Marlowe and that is why your rhetoric and name calling means little to me. It doesn't mean a thing.

I don't get emotional over it. I have no feelings over it. Its just an emptiness.

I know the eyes of certain soldiers. I know the eyes of certain parents. They are not like you angry. They are way past that.

You don't get it. You have to reduce the passage back to how it insults you or hurts you. It had nothing to do with you. It was a comment saying, get over yourself. Its not about you. Its about those children on BOTH sides. They both equally suffer.

You don't know what its like to have to wear a uniform and carry the burden of a people on your shoulders wondering if what you are doing is morally the correct thing. You do not walk in the shoes or clothes of Palestinians or Israelis.

All I try do is respect them both and openly admit my political biases but show they do not make me hate Arabs or Palestinians as they make you call out names against Israelis you do not know.

Gilos or Hbender could have long ago told me to shut up. They never did. They don't necessarily agree with all I said. No Israelis would. Some consider me a peacenik Labourite naïve fool but they do not insult me or my belief in peace. You do and that is o.k.

I know many people like Gilos. They do not hate Palestinians. They do not hate children. They do not hate. You can keep stereotyping them all you want but I am sorry to disappoint you they are just boring people like me. They just try live their lives each day free of conflict.

Its not rocket science. You need to tone down the name calling and ask why in these discussions it always comes down to that.

I have asked that question. To me the answer is that some people get caught up in their emotions and it clouds their vision-it distorts what they can see and hear. It makes them blind and deaf. In my case had I allowed the anger to consume me I would have missed out on things I now realize.

No you can not get me to give up on decency, respect, civility with the name calling. I am way past the name calling.

I am at a place where my only role if asked is to help someone if they ask, on their terms. No more, no less.

I peeled potatoes. I unclogged toilets. I painted grapefruit trees. That is what people like me are needed for. I claim to offer nothing else in this dialogue. The words just mean to say that and that alone to Israelis and Palestinians. I know the best thing I can do is avoid the name calling and support charitable work that helps bring both sides together. I take great satisfaction in an animal shelter in Israel that I know of or a charity that assists children get medical help and does not care if they are Palestinian or Israeli.

Everytime I hear your words of anger, I think of these charities, not you or Moon.

Dag nab it, that Buddhism in my Jewishness is coming out. Watch it. I may tell you to have tea with a Bahaii or
Zoroastrean. Yegads.

 

Yetzerhara has also offered to send me the kidneys of a dead Israeli kid .

You mean to say pro- Israel Jews don't do it ?

You should Daled Amos know how "amoral" it is .

http://daledamos.blogspot.co.uk/2006/08/123-israeli-children-killed-by.html


------

 

This thread is not about me its abt "Israeli President; Peres: Recognition of Jewish state 'unnecessary'

btw - I know who I am + you're nothing to me , I don't give a fig what you + yours think of me .

tata......
_

 

Yes, as the Israeli president of Israel is quite happy in his own mind that no recognition of Israel as a ' jewish ' State is necessary then it is ludicrous in the extreme for Netanyahu to insist that the Palestinians declare themselves as eggs for the neoZionist omelet.

 

This is rambling sorry to say, I still cannot understand the essence of your post.
What you wrote has no reflection on what we are discussing... the person who wrote that youngsters in Israel learn arm toting early by showing people and kids in a gun show has given a dishonest impression to the readers... There are all kinds of shows through the year in Israel i.e. gun shows, Flowers shows, art shows, agricultural machinery shows and families in Israel walk through them, etc.,

 

How often does your Minister Of Propaganda, Regev, appear on your screens?

 

I was sure that it is obvious to everybody that the images were taken from a weapon exhibition. I just expressed my opposition to be engaged into "show kids" game.

 

I take issue with that claim. Palestine- all traditional facts put aside- was British Mandated Territory and Britain was a sovereign nation. When Great Britain derogated its responsibilities for Palestine to the United Nations the UN undertook its mantle in treating Palestine- all of it and all of its people- as a UN protectorate. Thus any invasion of that territory is deemed illegal and all that territory designated Palestinian territory by the UN is under illegal Israeli occupation.
Your claim is further diminished by the fact that Palestine is now a United Nations-recognised State- and has been since November 29th, 2012. Most surely, all Israeli personnel within Palestine without Palestinian approval are there illegally.

 

all Israelis that reside within the 1949 Armistice Lines, are there legally.

all Israeli military personnel within the West Bank are there legally, as part of the Occupying Power.

 

There is no legal ' occupying power ' in Palestine. Invasion and occupation are disallowed under UN Charter Article 51- to which Israel is signatory. Temporary occupation is permitted until such times as the Security Council addresses the matter and that Security Council responsibility has already been discharged.

 

wrong!!!!

the 4th Geneva Convention allows for an Occupying Power when land is conquered during wartime.

you've clearly never read the 4th Geneva Convention

 

UN resolution 242

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Israel will withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 when the Palestinians terminate all claims and their state of belligerency with Israel, and recognizes the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, and Israel's right to live in peace and security, free from threats or acts of force.

the two conditions must come together, as part of a comprehensive peace agreement.

this isn't rocket science.

 

The Geneva Conventions describe humanitarian law- and Israel is most certainly in breach of all of the Conventions applying to Occupation. Occupation itself falls within international law as characterised by the UN and its Charter and Israel's belligerent occupation is illegal for the reasons I previously outlined.

Annexation is, of course, illegal. If Israel wishes its belligerent occupation to fall within the bounds of temporary occupation then it should announce that its occupation is temporary.

- - - Updated - - -

You have omitted the first, most salient, points of Resolution 242. Acquisition of territory is inadmissible. No matter who does what to whom and when- territory can never be gained unless agreed by all contracting parties.

 

If Occupation was illegal during wartime, the 4th Geneva Conventions would have said so.

UN Resolution 242 is clear: Israel must leave territories occupied since 1967 and the Arabs must recognize Israel and live in peace with her.

 

You are offering a simplistic view of both the Geneva Conventions and international law . As I've already pointed out your omissions I reject the simplistic views you continue to repeat.

 

do you disagree that UN resolution 242 calls for Israel to vacate territories occupied since 1967, and for the Arabs to recognize Israel and live in peace with her?

 

Do you agree with its demands for ' a just settlement of the refugee problem; ' ? Israel cannot be recognised if it refuses to accept its displaced non-jews.

 

yes, there should be a just settlement to the Palestinian refugee issue.

this should include:

settlement in the new State of Palestine.

financial compensation

 

Its interesting. I never specified if it was an Israeli or Palestinian kidney. You assumed I was only referring to an Israeli one. That is precisely the point. You can only see this conflict referred to by referring to one side. My point remains its impossible to know whose kidney it was and your need to be partisan so entrenched that you continue to project on to me a partisan blindness only you express.

I will say it one more time. Burning flesh matters little if its Palestinian or Israeli. Yes you clearly need some to get that point. Clearly literary references are just not working.

 

Your first statement is false. Annexation of land that was never part of a sovereign nation is nnot illegal.

This is precisely why the UN remained silent when Jordan did it.


Your second statement is quite correct. If you intend to annex non soverign land you have to do it. You can not sort of do it. International law does state if you intend to occupy land that never belonged to anyone you must administer it as part of your own country with all citizens under the same government (annexation) or you administer the area under a military administration which means its not annexed but administered by the military. It would only be occupied by military if it was part of another sovereign country before the occupation.

Since Jordan legally undid its annexation that does not apply and the Ottoman Empire no longer exists and it never formally annexed the West Bank it did though at one point administer it through a land titles office.

Resolution 242 did not say aquisition of territory is inadmissable. You created that political interpretation of it.

Israel violated international law when it set up a civilian goverment for Israelis on the West Bank but left a military administration for the Palestinians.


The Palestinian claim to all of the West Bank or part of it is no more valid than Israel's and therein lies the legal problem.

Under international law despite the rhetoric of the UN whoch has tried to unilaterally declare all of the West Bank belonging to Palestinians it can not and this is why the matter has never gone to international court. It can't. Its possible Palestinians could go to war to try force that creation and by de facto seizure throw Israel out and create that state.That though is a remote possibility. Fatah Hawks and Hamas and the 300 other cells of terrorists won't engage in a conventional war. They prefer to disguise themselves as women, children and the elderly and make isolated attacks at civilians. More their style.

So let us put it in simple terms you can understand without the law-Israel can not administer Israeli and Palestinians differently on the West Bank.

That is in legal fact where it violated international law. It is a myth and simply untrue it can not occupy a land that was under dispute and never part of a sovereign nation. In fact in law it can despite all the political rhetoric and myths as to the legality of Resolution 242 which is not a law, but a declaration of how the UN would like the law to be interpreted if it went to international court.

The UN has tried to establish different rights for Palestinians then others and in so doing vitiated any ability to enforce these laws without them being rendered unenforceable in inyernational court.

By giving a different definition of refugee to Palestinians then it has all other refugees in the world, it established a fatal legal inconsist that no political rhetoric can make go away. You may not understand that, the vast majority of people may not because they are not international lawyers, but the international courts do know that.

To create a Palestinian state, it will have to come about with Israel's consent or it its creation will remain in court and be subject to never ending legal conflicts that could never be resolved-they would get stuck in a surealistic loop of legal jargon.

This is why the US urged Israel to sign a voluntary consent agreement with the Palestinian authority agreeing to phase in a Palestinian state next door to Israel.

Arafat chose to rip up that agreement and state he would never allow any Palestinian government to agree to anything but a Palestinian state that included all of Israel, Jordan and the West Bank. He said that not I. He stated not I that Israel and the US should have known he was bargaining in bad faith and just stalling for time in between wars. He said that not I.

Mr. Abbas not I said he would never accept a Jewish state and will only recognize Israel if it takes in sufficient numbers of persons calling themselves Palestinians to turn it from a Jewish state to a Muslim state. He said then and only then would he recognize it and then unify it with his state. He said that not I.

So we are no further ahead than theend of the failed attempt in 1949 to wipe Israel off the map. Palestinians who started calling themselves that only after 1967 when they failed to seize control of Jordan were offered instant citizenship to anyone called Palestinian as long as they were not Jews. Jordan denounced that and gave up annexation of the West Bank when it realized its own citizens did not want Palestinians part of their nation.

You can try revise history all you want but Britain never was given a mandate to create Jordan. It was given a mandate to facilitate the creation of a Jewish state and a Muslim state not just one state for Muslims. Churchill admitted in his biography the British deliebrately lied to the League of Nations and never had any intention of creating a Jewish nation and in fact seized 80% of Palestine and turned it into Jordan to prevent a Jewish state.

The Balfour proposal was not the original mandate and despite the fact it only awarded Jews less than 4% of the original mandated land for a Jewish state, was accepted by Israel. It was the Arab League and the Mufti of Jerusalem who turned even that deal down saying not one inch of land would be given to Jews. Revise that all you want its there and its a fact.

The fact is you can try harp on and revise history all you want to re-write Jews fleeing the holocaust and Arab retaliation for the formation of an Israeli state as invaders but they were not. They were no more invaders than the millions of non Palestinian Arabs who flooded into Jordan, the West Bank and today's Israel displacing Palestinians after the British in the 1920's deliebrately created an immigration policy to swamp the area to make Jews a minority preventing them from having a state.

You can revise history all you want to skip the fact that the Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi and a principal player in the creation of gas chambers to kill Jews and broadcast from Germany as a guest of Hitler during WW2 that all Jews in the world must be wiped out.

You can pretend the Bath parties of Iraq and Syria and the government of Egypt did not model themselves after the Nazis and after WW2 become a haven for Nazis. You can pretend the British did not lead the armies of the Arab League against Israel in 1948 or fly Egypt's aircraft that shot and killed Zionists fighting for an Israeli state.

You can pretend Israel started a war for no reason. Revise all you want, it can't and won't change history nor does it mean a thing.

Your hatred expressed for Israel and Jews speaks for itself in your comments.

I don't care. What I know is that Palestinians will and do need a country. Israel knows that. We all know that. Its people need a country.

For that to happen demonization with words of both Israelis and Palestinians has to stop.

Partisan people like you engaging in dialogue that incites hatred against one side and suggests there can be no compromises means nothing.

The reality is people, every day Israelis and Palestinians have to and will find themselves. They will have to find a way to focus away from the past and the pain and distrust that comes from the past and focus on the here and now and on what can be not what was not.

You can try refocus people back to the past and dwell on the past and use that past to try drum up hatred. Go ahead. Most people have no clue of the history you talk of or international law. They are limited to sound bites on an internet article or two.

They mean nothing. What counts are what Israelis and Palestinians think and do and neither will be influenced by you and your words.

The difference between us is you claim to speak for Palestinians I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself.

Only a fool would think he can tell an Israeli they should settle for a border where terrorists dedicated on wiping him or her out should be able to be seconds from where they live.

Only a fool would think Israel can remain on the West Bank indefinitely without some sort of recognition of a Palestinian state.

Most of us are well aware of that.

You have omitted the first, most salient, points of Resolution 242. Acquisition of territory is inadmissible. No matter who does what to whom and when- territory can never be gained unless agreed by all contracting parties.

 

the land is not Israel's to annex.

it is only Occupied Territory.

a nation cannot annex land until the opposing party signs a treaty, reliquishing all rights to the land.

and if they refuse to sign a treaty, then the UN would have to issue a SC resolution deeming the land to be part of that country.

that is the only way a state can annex land formally being in the possession of another state.

 

Your precise words were

Hhhmmmm.




tata ..

 

Marlowe you quoted these words from me:


"Marlowe what I would like to do is take the kidneys of a child I put in a body bag after a terrorist attack and mail them to you."

Then you stated:

Hhhmmmm. tata ..[/QUOTE]


Where Marlowe did it say in the above the children had to be Israeli? Are you that blinded by your politics you can even repeat what I said and fail to see your reading into it something it never said?

Are you saying Palestinian children have not died in terrorist attacks? Are you saying because I said children are drying in terrorist attacks I can only mean Israelis? Really? Are you that blinded by your partisan politics?

Marlowe can you not even fathom the possibility that Palestinian children, Lebanese children, Iraqi children, Syrian Children, Egyptian Children, Iranian
children, Kurdish children, Sudanese children, Indian children, Pakistani children, the children of the Middle East Israeli or otherwise have been exposed to terrorism?

Are you going to tell me you are unaware that there is Muslim on Muslim attacks? Are you going to tell me otherwise?

Let's get this clear so clear I won't get another thread from you going hmmmm and tah. Children have died yes. You chose to exploit that as a partisan dig at Israel. I choose to say, children die from BOTH sides if there is such a thing as a side and it doesn't matter who those children are dying they are children for God's sake and to exploit that to incite partisan comments of hatred is pointless. That is what I was challenging.

You really think pulling the dying child accusation works? Its one of the oldest and most pathetic incitement tools used to try incite anger and emotion and that is what I am challenging.

Dialogue exploring peace options does not call on people to take the blood of children and throw it about like some cheap stunt to get attention. You haven't a clue whose steaming kidney I was talking about and you keep calling that kidney Israeli.

Wow, It doesn't matter whose kidney it is Marlowe and you are so blinded by the rhetoric you still insist on going hmmmmm and tah and trying to read into it a partisan slight. No that is your department not mine.

See I know the people that clean the streets up. They are not animals. They are witnesses to something you just can't grasp and that is when death comes, it equalizes-it renders all the divisions and name calling you can possibly imagine a blatant absurdity and it shuts us up. It makes us humble. It makes our emotions meaningless and our thoughts meaningless.

Its why soldiers years later drink or do not sleep sometimes. Its why others turn away from people. Its why the very people who need to tell you that you are wrong never will. They realize you can't see or hear. You stopped doing that a long time ago. You get so caught up in the accusations and moral judgements and demonizing you can't hear or see let alone smell the kidney and realize how absurd your name calling is.

Hmmmm.

Tah,