Pure Zionism by the right in Israel

Huh?

British law is valid in the west bank?

the west bank is governed in a small area by the PA's basic law and elsewhere under Israeli MILITARY OCCUPATION LAWS (which are pretty much whatever they feel like within minimal constraints).


Amazing.

 

Israel is respecting the British, Jordanian, Ottoman and the Israeli laws in the West Bank. It is like Jordan respected the British laws when their were in the West Bank in 1948-1967. Jordan even based their manual on the British manual. Thus, the British law is need to be respected, which means that the British law regarding private lands is accepteble and respected in the West Bank till nowadays.

 

Can you be more specific and name these "good Zionists"?

 

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

 

Israel is not a signatory to any British, Jordanian, or Ottoman Law.

they are a signatory and obliged to follow the 4th Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter and the Hague Convention.

as an Occupying Power, Israel is obliged to follow all international laws regarding Occupied lands.

international law SUPERCEDES all national laws, in regards to warfare and conduct during warfare.

- - - Updated - - -

damn right Israel has to follow the 4th GC and the Hague Convention!!!!!!

why do you think Israel is the only country on Earth that is above international law????

why do you think Israel is the only country on Earth that doesn't have to abide by the laws they have promised to follow???

- - - Updated - - -

and no, Israel is ignoring the 4th GC and the Hague Convention, in regards to the legal use of Occupied Territory and specifically private property.

 

Indivisible Jerusalem VIDEO


Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/98DMPOC-dUQ

 

Historians and history books.

And Israel is fullfiling international law anf the laws there are in the area, such as Jordanian, Ottoman and British. As Jordan did until 1967.

 

WRONG!!!!

Israel is violating the 4th Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Rome Statutes, and the UN Charter.

that's why they prefer to try to bankrupt the ICC rather than defend themselves against charges of war crimes.

 

Israel is well prepered of such charges. All the Arabs need to do is to go to ICC and drag Israel with them, until now they didnt do it.
Israel is respecting and fulfilling international law as the local laws in the West Bank. I showed it to you numerous of times but you prefer to ignore it.

 

I can't ignore something that is not true.

I look forward to watching Israel fail at defending themselves against formal charges of war crimes at The Hague.

but you and I both know, Israel will not defend themselves against any charges, because they feel they are above international law, and according to you only have to abide by British law.

 

I showed you that even Profesors of international law, such as Prof. Rostow, agrees with me, but I guess that for you he is a nobody.
I showed you that Article 49 from the 4th GC is not applicble and Articl 55 from the Hauge Convention and laws from the British Manual (which isreal respect in the West Bank) contradict what you claimed, but stiil, you prefer to ignore all that and to continue say what you are saying.

Israel will not get the chance to defend itself as long as the Arabs won't drag Israel to the ICC.

 

um, agreement with dead men don't matter for much.

Israel is obliged to follow the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and Hague Conventions.

they have failed to do so.

British law, in this situation, is 100% IRRELEVENT.

 

If Israel isn't guilty, then it should have nothing to worry about. Keep in mind, this also puts Palestinian at risk of investigation since they are also guilty of crimes(Hamas with rocket attacks and members of other groups that participated in attacks against civilians during the second intifada like Martyr brigade and Tanzim). Does Theodore Meron(advisor to foreign ministry after the six day war) past 6 Shin Bet chiefs, Israeli Supreme Court, etc. count as nobody?

Article 49 does apply to West Bank since its occupied territory. Outside settlers themselves and supporters mainly in right wing parties like Likud and Jewish Home its considered occupied territory. Every government except for Israel including their allies consider it occupied territory and the settlements illegal. In otherwords any government outside those party to the conflict and even many Israelis in places of leading authority which you wouldn't expect consider it occupied which means article 49 applies. For those who say it only applies those who are forced into the occupied territory. Why in the article does it say its prohibited to deport which means forcing civilian population onto occupied territory and also says its illegal to transfer civilian population too. Wouldn't that make it redundant since it already says you can't force civilian population onto the occupied territory?

Regarding the claim that its not occupation because it was won in a war of defense and it was from Jordan whose's sovereignty wasn't recognized. However according to international law expert John Quigley that's not the case. He says "a state that uses force in self-defense may not retain territory it takes while repelling an attack. If Israel had acted in self-defense, that would not justify its retention of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not" Article 55 says that the occupying power must protect public buildings, real property, forest, and real estate of the hostile state. The settlements obviously didn't belong to Jordan which would be the hostile state. The 4th Geneva Convention's entire purpose is protect the rights of the occupied. That article is meant to protect public property and resources of the occupied from being abused. How does the settlements achieve that?
https://books.google.com/books?id=V...N Charter there can lawfully be no te&f=false
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-...ts-are-illegal-under-international-law-336507

West Bank is not under British law. The only area that is, is East Jerusalem since Israel annexed it(an annexation no other country recognizes) causing Israeli civil law which a large part consist of British common law to apply to it. That isn't the case. Military law applies to West Bank in combination with PA law in areas B and A.

Article 80 applies to UN trustees. West Bank isn't part of a trustee. The mandate for Palestine has been over since 1948. With the expectation of the gulf states and Turkey every state in the Middle East was formed from either a French or British mandate. All the mandates for these states ended after they became independent since the purpose of the mandate was for the British and French to govern these territories till they can govern themselves. Article 80 doesn’t support the settlements or the occupation. Here is a quote from David Ben Gurion “the mandate, in fact does not exist because it was violated by the Mandatory. We are not in favor of renewing it. [..] we say that the original intention and the need, and what in our conviction is just, should be decided upon by the United Nations [..]I said we do not ask for a mandate any more, so it is not a question. The question does not arise on the mandate” This quote emphasize the point more that the goal of the mandate of a Jewish home has been fulfilled since 1948. How does holding onto the territories fulfill that goal if not make that goal a lot more difficult? In addition,the British white paper of 1922 clarified that in the Balfour declaration it says Jewish home should be founded in Palestine not necessary all of Palestine.
http://www.academia.edu/6066378/Art...ons_on_settlements_E-International_Relations_

 

I am fully aware of how English common law was propagated throughout the colonial empire and adopted by other nations as well.

OTOH, Israel's basic law share many elements, but is substantively different for obvious reasons. Palestinian Basic Law is not English common law either. Neither is Jordan's.

the Palestinian territories are governed by Israeli Military Occupation Law, which is supposed to mirror the Geneva Conventions, but which is rather broadly "interpreted".
(i.e. things like collective punishment for instance).

Your outrageous statement that Israel is fulfilling other nation's laws in its own nation and in the territories is beyond reality.

We live in the year 2015, not in 1967, 1947, or 1918. Might want to get with the program.



.[/QUOTE]

 

it is metter, when the men is talking about relevent subject.

And Israel is respecting the international law as the local laws in the West Bank, like the British ones. Like Jordan did until 1967.

It is relevent, because this is part of the local laws in the West Bank, therefore, it needs to be respected.

 

In the West Bank there are several laws that exist. The Israel law, British law, Jordanian law and the Ottoman law. Israel is respecting those laws.
Israel after 1967, anounced that international law is not Israel's obligation to fulfill because the West Bank is not occupy, but still Israel anounced that it will respect and still fulfill the international law in the West Bank, which Isreal's doing.

The Arabs governed in Areas A and B by the PA. In the security issues, Israel incharge, as it was agreed on in Oslo, if they dont like it, the they should blame Arafat which signed to Oslo, if they dont like the current reality (that was created because of Oslo).

I never said that Israel is fulfilling other nations laws. I simply said that Israel is fulfilling the local laws there are in the West Bank. The local laws are the Ottoman, Jordanian and British laws. Those are the same laws that Jordan fulfilled until 1967.

I'm living according to the reality, thank you.

 

Does Prof. Rostow, Profesor of international law, is nobody? if not, then you should trust what he said about the West Bank (that it is belong to the Jews and that the Mandate is not over).

Article 49 is not relevent to the current reality in the West Bank, because Israel is not transfering it's citizens to the West Bank.

Not according to international law experts.

So are you saying that because someone consider something as something, then that something is right? If so, then also I can consider Sinai part of Israel, but does that say that it is true? no, right? and that's because the reality and history, correct? if so, then also the West Bank can be dealt with as "occupied territory", beause history is cotradicting that cinsidiration.

Israel is not transfering ot forcing it's civilian population onto the West Bank, thus Article 49 is not relevent to be used as "evidence that the settlements are illegal".

There is right of the Jews over Gaza and the West Bank, it is the Mandate, that Article 80 of the UN Charter kept it's validity.
Article 80 was created in San Francisco, 1945 ,which of course was created esspecialy to keep the Mandate valid.

Also Prof. Rostow, an international law experts said:

And according to Prof. Stone, another international law epxert,said that 4th GC is not applicable in the West Bank:

Which means that accoring to the 4th GC itself, this convention cannot be applicable in the West Bank the territory was not belonged to 'another High Contracting Party'.

A support to Prof. Stone claim, cna be found in Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht writing in 1968:

Which means that without "another High Contracting Party" that the territory belong to it and thus to be considered as "occupied", the 4th GC cannot be applicable in the West Bank.

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id... entirely lacked legal justification.&f=false

The laws that is been protected in the West Bank by Israel is the British law, Jordanian law, Ottoman law and the Israeli law.

Like Prof. Rostow said:

The British Mandate was over in 1948, not the Mandate for Palestine.
The Mandate was given back to the UN in 1947, thus in 1948 it couldnt be over, because the Mandate was in the hands and the responsibility to fulfill it by the UN and not Britain.

Right, the British Mandate ened, not the Mandate for Palestine.

Article 80 formed in San Francisco Cofference, to protect the Mandate validity.
Prof. Rostow talked about it:

He added:

Source: http://www.mandateforpalestine.org/02mm--mandate-is-valid.html

So are you saying that the West Bank is not part of "Palestine"?

 

he died 12 years ago.

his ideas are old, out of date, and wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

what an absurd statement!!!!

they are one and the same.

 

So are you saying that because he died, he's ideas are wrong? If so, then it means that for example Isaac Newton, his idea and his finding of gravity, is old, out of date and wrong in today's reality.

If not, which means Newton's finding is still relevent even if he dead, then it is contradicting what you just wrote. Prof. Rostow talked about a current subject (the legitimacy of Israel existance in the West Bank), like Newton's idea about gravity was and still relevent idea.

They are not the same. The Mandate of Palestine gave the responsibility to fullfil the Mandate of Palestine to the Brits, but when the Brits gave back the responsibility of the Mandate to the UN in 1947, then it means that the Mandate was not longer in 1948 in the hands of the Brits, which means that the Mandate for Palestine was in the responsibility of the UN, thus the end of the Mandate wasnt ended the Mandate for Palestine.

 

Perhaps you can back up this nonsensical claim with the source that claims multiple laws apply in the West bank.

The West bank is under belligerent military occupation according to the Israeli supreme court.

Yes, and the Oslo accords were never fully implemented, or did that little factoid escape you?

No, they are not. Not even close. Where exactly are you getting this ridiculous distortion from?

Seems reality and your opinion are entirely at odds. Your welcome.

 

According to the research "The Legal Status of Lands Acquired by Israelis before 1948 in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem", it says there that "historical metamorphoses of Judea and Samaria are expressed in complex laws which apllied today. This system consists of the law that existed in the area with IDF forces entered it in 1967, and the court sources added it from 1967."

The laws in the West Bank that were existing under the Jordanian occupation was the Jordanian, British and Ottoman laws.

Who said that Oslo was fulfilled? Oslo was not fulfilled entirely, but yes because of Oslo there are Areas A, B and C, therefore it is ok to say hat it hapenned beacuse Oslo.

My opinion is backed up by historians and international experts. Are you saying that those people are not thinking according to the reality?

 

Yes, I am aware of the history. OTOH, that is not the case today.

Guess you aren't actually familiar with the Oslo Accords and the timelines and transfers of powers/responsibilities outlined in it.

IIRC, it was the whole ball of wax the Israelis and Palestinians signed up for and that AREAS ABC were temporary constructs while other outstanding issues were negotiated.

Okay. Lets get attempt complete clarity.

In 2015, what laws govern the West Bank?

 

This is the case today. The laws in the West Bank are the laws before 1967 and after it, as the research shows.

I familiar with Oslo, I read it several of times and know what it says.

The other issues would be nagotiated later on, as Oslo stated, and it been tried to get to a perement agreement in Camp David, but Arafat didnt want to accapt Barak's offer, which was what he wanted (like East Jerusalem part of the Arab state, removla of settlements etc). After Camp David, the second intifadah has began, what made Oslo to collapse.

I already said what laws, and used a research to rainforce it.

 

You keep insisting this is the case, but you can provide NO evidence to support this claim.

Perhaps another tack.

Who administers and manages this supposed hodgepodge of laws from various constituencies that are no longer involved or even extinct?
for example, who is the authority to adjudicate when these supposed laws contradict one another?

You seem to be confusing history with the present, and original sources upon which some laws are formulated as being the same thing.

Good then you know that you can't use the areas ABC as a rationale for Palestinian acceptance of Israeli sovereignty, since it was only partially implemented.

Arafat was histories greatest example of Wiley E Coyote. How he wasn't assassinated at multiple points in his "career" is a question that will confound historians for centuries. Notwithstanding the issues of sincerity, lost opportunity, etc. the fact remains that Oslo was only partially implemented and that partial implementation is indicative of nothing other than it never was able to achieve its objective.

Off topic, I believe Arafat started the second intifada to take the heat off himself and his thieving corrupt ways. The PA "investigation" into corruption charges was getting to close for comfort and he needed a distraction which ironically as it turns out was provided by Sharon's visit to the al Quds.




I already said what laws, and used a research to rainforce it.[/QUOTE]

 

I already did it. Once again:

Israel. And that's only in Area C and in area B regarding the security, all the rest areas which is Area A and Area B (regarding the civil issues) is the PA.

I'm not confusing history with present. I'm using history to rainforce the present.

The Mandate is not talking about Areas A, B and C, and still the Jewish right over areas like the West Bank is existed,this right is been protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter and which the ICJ reffirmed in 1950, 1971 and 2004, so even according to the UN Charter and ICJ, the Jews have the legal right over the West Bank.

Oslo couldnt achived it's objective (which the objective is establishment of an Arab state) because the Arabs rejected Israeli offer, even if the offer was what the Arab wanted (and still want).

So it is Arafat blame that Camo David was ended without agreement. As Clinton wrote in his authobiography "My Life".