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

According to the 4th GC, Israel's military occupation is legal.

 

No, it isn't.

 

Let's get them all returned to their homes - from which they were driven by Zionists- or compensated according to their Right of Return- and then we'll see which brass-necked Israeli claims that they owe him anything at all.

 

moon, et al,

I don't think that letting any Hostile Arab Palestinian into Israel is a sound option or good security strategy; but, that is just my opinion.

(COMMENT)

I believe that Israel has already made the first move.

The UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) said: "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 withdrew from the Gaza Strip. HAMAS has still not recognized the State of Israel and - indeed - has not terminated belligerency.

While there may have been a "Right-of-Return" (RoR) at one time, that might have been workable, I don't believe that the Palestinians have demonstrated the turn and confidence in their word that would make further consideration worthy of a second test. I believe the issue of the RoR should be revisited in May 2048 (34 years from now); but, that is just my opinion.

I believe that if this round of peace talks fails, that the next scheduled talks should be placed on the calendar in 34 years; with the occupation maintained as it is until then. This should be the status quo unless some event or plea by the Palestinians warrants an advancement in the timetable. But it would seem to me that the Palestinians would have to offer some measure of a concession that truly demonstrates good faith.

Again (in my opinion), the Arab State of Palestine must be able to pay - for cost arising from their hostile actions directly linked to the solemn threat of 1948, the HAMAS Covenant, the Palestinian Charter, or independent actions by Palestinian terrorist cells:

• reparations
• restitution
• civil claims
• damages

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Of course it is. Israel gained the land in a war of defense. Therefore is fully entitled to settle its people on the land. Had Israel gained the land in a war of attack, and forcibly transferred the Israelis on to the gained land, then that would be in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, but that didn't happen. And the amazing thing is Israel begged Jordan not to join in the attack against Israel in 1967, but Jordan did. Win win for Israel.

 

sure it is.

The 4th GC allows an Occupying Power to Occupy conquered territory.

 

No, Israel has violated the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation. The occupation is illegal.

 

How exactly have Israel violated?

 

Convince me that you are already aware of the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation.

 

I don't have to convince you of anything. I asked you a question, so would be so good as to answer it?

 

BroadwayBaby; Ronstar; moon; et al,

Well, I think some clarification is need here.

(COMMENT)

The Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, (AKA: The Fourth Geneva Convention or GCIV) (with Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977) is silent on the issue of what constitutes the establishment of a legal occupation. The GCIV speaks to when an occupation becomes effectively established, how to properly administer the occupation, and the protections afforded various categories of people within the occupation; supplemented by some rights and procedures. But it does not define the legality of the initiation of the occupation itself.

Without regard to whether the initial establishment of an occupation is legal, or not, is irrelevant to the issue of population transfers. The general intention of the international law/treaty is stated in both the Humanitarian GCIV and the Rome Statutes; respectively cited below.

• Article 49, Para 6: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
• Article 8, Para 2b(viii): The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

The Article 42 of the Hague, Regulations of 1907 defines it as: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." The idea of a "belligerent occupation" arises in the matter of "consent by the population." That is to say that a non-consensual presence of constitutes a "belligerent occupation." The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) generally holds that for the purpose of international humanitarian law (IHL), occupying power is effective when it "enforces overall control over de facto local authorities or other organized groups that have effective control over a territory or part thereof."

The end of an occupation is the reverse. The end is not when one of these conditions changes favorably:

• The continued physical presence of foreign forces ends.
• The ability to exercise effective authority over the territory concerned in lieu of the territorial sovereign ends.
• The continued absence of the territorial sovereign’s consent to the foreign forces’ presence ends.

Clearly, under the ICRC criteria, the Gaza Strip is NOT occupied territory. However, it is contained territory (a separate discussion).

The West Bank, is today, at least partially occupied. It is defined under the Oslo II Accords as:

For the purpose of this Agreement and until the completion of the first phase of the further redeployments:

a. "Area A" wherein the security and civil administration is autonomous to the Palestinian Authority. (NOT OCCUPIED BY DEFINITION)

b. "Area B" wherein the security is an Israeli responsibility and the civil administration is a responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. (Arguably OCCUPIED BY DEFINITION)

c. "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B wherein the security and civil administration is Israeli responsibility, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. (OCCUPIED BY DEFINITION)​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Quid pro quo. If you are unaware of the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation then you'd be incapable of appreciating how such basic tenets had been violated.

I should cast seed on barren ground ? No. Convince me.

Edit. You can safely ignore RoccoR's interjection which has minimal relevance to the matter in hand.

 

I am aware, but the etiquette of forums is that when you make a claim you have to back it up. So back it up please.

 

Within the etiquette of forums I have the right to differentiate between trolling and genuine enquiry.

 

In other words you can't back up your claims.

 

I haven't yet- but then neither have you.

 

So you make a claim in order to troll, then of course back out slowing with your tail between your legs.

 

lol!!!

no one is under any obligation to convince you of anything.

 

Last I read, the Israel Lobby was second only to AARP in terms of contributions. The gun lobby might have sneaked in ahead of the Israel Lobby in the last year or two.

 

Nor I you- but Israel has violated the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation. The occupation is illegal.

Your oft-repeated bullhorn of the legality of occupying someone else's country is so much crap.

 

Again no proof of your claims.

 

Tell us what makes a ' legal ' occupation.

 

No, it was you who disputed Israel's legality there. So as I have said a few times, the onus is on you.

You are in a hole and you continue to keep digging.

 

I simply do not believe that you are aware of the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation. It's a simple as that. Nothing in any of your posts indicates otherwise.

As I said previously I have the right to differentiate between genuine enquiry and persistent trolling. Why don't you try convincing me otherwise ?

 

As I said the onus is on you to prove what you said in post 477 when you disputed that according to the 4th GC, Israel's military occupation is legal.