04-05-2004 21:28									#91
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Sorry but the protestations that the woman was a voluntary soldier were a bit nauseating and stank of someone giving justification for the act.

I should have known this thread wasn't one where to debate on the validity of settlers as targets.

I don't want settlers to be killed, especially parents and pregnant mothers. Just like I don't want to see soldiers killed anymore. The act described in the OP is especially heinous, as the killers made a point in peppering innocent children and a pregnant mother with bullets. I think these people are probably on par with the corpse burners and hangers of Fallujah, or on par with the lynchers of the intifada, back when it begun. This act is barbarous, and I never wished to justify it.

However, I misplaced a debate that I deem legitimate (and that would probably deserve its own thread, now that I think of it), on the validity of occupation settlers as military targets, across history.

	04-05-2004 21:44									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark from 1948 to about 1965, Israel applied military administation to predominantly arab areas WITHIN the green line, notably the Upper Galillee. No international organization, to my knowledge, claimed that the Upper Galilee was "occupied territory" nor that Israeli settlements in Upper Gallilee (of which there were several) were violations of the Geneva Convention. In fact it IS de jure sovereignty that matters, not the form of administration.

HELLO!

You said the magic words-within the green line. Which right now are seen as Israel's borders. That Isarel deciced to apply military law to it as opposed to civil law, which they could have done, was an Israeli decision on their internal matters.

Israel has NO de jure sovereignty to anything outiside the green line. The fact no one else does is irrelevant to the fact Israel does not, so its is bound by the Geneva convention.

	04-05-2004 21:50									#93
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap HELLO! You said the magic words-within the green line. Which right now are seen as Israel's borders. That Isarel deciced to apply military law to it as opposed to civil law, which they could have done, was an Israeli decision on their internal matters. Israel has NO de jure sovereignty to anything outiside the green line. The fact no one else does is irrelevant to the fact Israel does not, so its is bound by the Geneva convention.

AFAIK the question of the application of the Geneva accords in a situation where no one has recognized de jure sovereignty is not explicitly addressed by those accords. In fact Id be curious if it has come up in any other context than the West Bank/Gaza.

	04-05-2004 21:51									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Lets make it simple:

Is Gaza Israeli land? right now, NO.

Is the IDF there by the request of the inhabitants or because of some deal with another state that has soverignty there? NO.

So why one earth would the actions of an occupational army NOT fall under the Geneva convention?

Give me a break

	04-05-2004 21:54									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark AFAIK the question of the application of the Geneva accords in a situation where no one has recognized de jure sovereignty is not explicitly addressed by those accords. In fact Id be curious if it has come up in any other context than the West Bank/Gaza.

Israel's is the only government that buys that line of argument-which of course i no suprise as it is totally self-serving.

Settlements in Gaza and the West bank are as illegal as those in the Golan Heights. You don;t get away with one crime by trying to argue about someone elses-the crimes of Egypt and Jordan in aborting a Palestinian state.

	04-05-2004 22:00									#96
	Increase the size of your Attachments

A nice article on this issue in general:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php

	04-05-2004 22:03									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap Lets make it simple: Is Gaza Israeli land? right now, NO. Is the IDF there by the request of the inhabitants or because of some deal with another state that has soverignty there? NO. So why one earth would the actions of an occupational army NOT fall under the Geneva convention? Give me a break

because the disputed nature of the land does not prejudice the right of one of the parties to the dispute to establish settlements.

Is the West Bank PA land? No. Does that prevent the PA from building housing there? No.

Note further

"Protected persons who are [b] not nationals of the Power whose territory is occupied[b] may avail themselves of the right to leave the territory subject to the provisions of Article 35, and decisions thereon shall be taken according to the procedure which the Occupying Power shall establish in accordance with the said Article. "


The conventions clearly are intended for the case where the territory of a power is occupied by the military of another power.

	04-05-2004 22:05									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap Israel's is the only government that buys that line of argument-which of course i no suprise as it is totally self-serving.

And the government of the US, while it may not explicitly support that line of argument, has always stated that the settlements are objectionable as obstacles to peace, and has NOT called them violations of the Geneva convention.

	04-05-2004 22:07									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap A nice article on this issue in general: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php

that article includes the following


"In fact, it appears that no State has ever formally applied the IVth Geneva Convention to territory under its control. The laws of occupation, as they were then, were not applied to the allied occupation of Germany after World War II on the grounds that the Reich no longer existed and therefore there was no previous sovereign whose rights needed protection. "

	04-05-2004 22:10									#100
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark And the government of the US, while it may not explicitly support that line of argument, has always stated that the settlements are objectionable as obstacles to peace, and has NOT called them violations of the Geneva convention.

We also, while we know Israel has nukes, play along with them and don;t place santions on them for having them. So what the US does in regard to Israel is really irrelevant.

As for your response:

yes, and the authoer argues that the problem with the current law is that it does give too much emphasis to there beijng another power in charge. Thought you don;t quote the part about Israel and Jordan and those claims.

Or that the Israeli supreme court has stated Israel should follow the whole, not just admit that the humanitarian provisions apply.

Please, no selective quoting.

	04-05-2004 22:13									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap Sorry, but again, what count is NOT a claim of sovereingty. The issue is what LAW applies. What code of law applies in Gaza? Lets take this crime: who has the right to persecute? Is it the PLA? Is it Israeli civil authorities? Is it the Israeli MIlitary? Who has jurisdiction? THAT is what counts. Israeli civil authority does NOT apply to the territories. Neither it seems does PLA law, at least not if an attack is on Israeli,c ause Israel then deserves the right to attack. Israel also carries out military operations in Gaza as well. So, it is the IDF that has final control and jurisdiction, over individual who are not Israeli citizens (in fact, they are not citizens of anywhere), thus it is an occupation by a foreign army on a civilian population. It was so in 1967, it is so today. Either Israel grants all Palestinians citizenship and has them fall under Israeli civil law, or it allows the PLA to delcare independence and then make Pals Citizens of Palestine, or it accepts the fact the Geneva Convention applies, but you don;t get to create a legal limbo for 1.2 million people. It is as plain as the sun in the daylight sky.

Yoour analysis above is interesting in that it implies that WHERE Israel annexes, applies civil law, and allows the Palestinians citizenship, the settlements would NOT be violations of the geneva conventions.

As you may be aware, this is in fact the case in East Jerusalem, which was annexed (in 1968, ISTR) where Israeli civil law is applied, and where Palestinians may apply for Israeli citizenship (though few have availed themselves of that option) Are you saying that Israeli housing developments in East Jerusalem are in a seperate legal category from those in Gaza and the West Bank?


It would not be difficult to annex the settlements at Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and other areas immediately adjacent to the green line. Israel has refrained from doing so as part of a policy of refraining from unilateral acts that would prejudice negotiations, and harm its relations with the US. However if that is prejudicing Israels standing in international law, that may need to be reconsidered.

	04-05-2004 22:19									#102
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap We also, while we know Israel has nukes, play along with them and don;t place santions on them for having them. So what the US does in regard to Israel is really irrelevant. LOTM - all states interpret international law in accordance with their interests. Those who interpret it in ways unfavorable to Israel do so as well, and their views are no more relevant than US views. As for your response: yes, and the authoer argues that the problem with the current law is that it does give too much emphasis to there beijng another power in charge. Thought you don;t quote the part about Israel and Jordan and those claims. Or that the Israeli supreme court has stated Israel should follow the whole, not just admit that the humanitarian provisions apply. Please, no selective quoting.

I see nothing in the part about Jordanian claims that supports anything other than what i have said above.

The Supreme Court opinion is unclear - the author says that the ISC has applied all parts of the IV convention to the territories, yet I know of no Supreme Court actions against settlements, which have been established in the territories since 1968. I can only assume that the decision was nuanced wrt settlements.

	04-05-2004 22:21									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

more from the article GEPap linked to:


"The general lack of explicit willingness by States to apply the IVth Convention would seem strange since that treaty is regarded as a basic text of international humanitarian law. The reason for non-application is to be found, I believe, in the dual nature of the law of occupation itself,. The laws of occupation are intended to safeguard the rights of the previous sovereign as well as making humanitarian provisions for the population. Those provisions intended to safeguard the rights of the previous sovereign include provisions prohibiting changing of local laws and prohibiting the altering of the status of local officials and judges. "

	04-05-2004 22:21									#104
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Palestinians are animals. Why should we treat animals like humans?

I'd like to see Israel drop a big napalm into one of those "chanting Israel's death" demonstration.

	04-05-2004 22:22									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nazi.

	04-05-2004 22:22									#106
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless Palestinians are animals. Why should we treat animals like humans? I'd like to see Israel drop a big napalm into one of those "chanting Israel's death" demonstration.

Palestinians are clearly humans, and cheering for murder is not generally a punishable act, and of course to punish it by deliberately killing those who do it is reprehensible.

	04-05-2004 22:23									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark It would not be difficult to annex the settlements at Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and other areas immediately adjacent to the green line. Israel has refrained from doing so as part of a policy of refraining from unilateral acts that would prejudice negotiations, and harm its relations with the US. However if that is prejudicing Israels standing in international law, that may need to be reconsidered.

Jerusalem is special in that neither side, Jew nor Palestinians, were supposed to claim it. There is a reason few if any states have their embassies in Israel in jerusalem-becuase most states do NOT recognize Israel right to the city as a whole. I would declare those settlements as illegal as the rest on the other side of the green line.

NOw, you keep talking about what israel or the US do: OK, here is a simple one. What do you think of the Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights? After all, in that piece of occupied territory you can;t skirt the question by saying there was no provious power-there was, Syria. Yet Israel has created settlements there as well. Do you consider the settlements in the Golam as illegal? If so, what do you think the US policy should be?

	04-05-2004 22:25									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Good to see LM fully supports terror and genocide.

Should we send you a big " I love the Reich" poster? Or an Osama one? Which one is your bigger hero?

	04-05-2004 22:26									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Jerusalem is special in that neither side, Jew nor Palestinians, were supposed to claim it. There is a reason few if any states have their embassies in Israel in jerusalem-becuase most states do NOT recognize Israel right to the city as a whole. I would declare those settlements as illegal as the rest on the other side of the green line. NOw, you keep talking about what israel or the US do: OK, here is a simple one. What do you think of the Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights? After all, in that piece of occupied territory you can;t skirt the question by saying there was no provious power-there was, Syria. Yet Israel has created settlements there as well. Do you consider the settlements in the Golam as illegal? If so, what do you think the US policy should be?

IIRC Israel annexed the Golan in 1982, and applies Israeli civil law there, and has allowed the local population (largely Druze) to apply for Israeli citizenship, this despite Israel clearly being willing to put the entire Golan on the negotiating table.

I will admit this does not answer the question of the legal status of Israeli settlements pre-1982, nor does it adequately address the status since 1982.

I would suggest that the answer is clear from the article you quoted. Since no one thinks that these settlements really do prejudice the final boundary (unlike the settlements in the West Bank) they are not really of concern to anyone. Does anyone care about the Green Zone in Baghdad??

	04-05-2004 22:28									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap Jerusalem is special in that neither side, Jew nor Palestinians, were supposed to claim it. LOTM - according the UN partition scheme of 1947, which was DOA. If youre going to invoke that, then Israeli housing in West Jerusalem is illegal, as is Israeli housing in large parts of Israel inside the Green line. There is a reason few if any states have their embassies in Israel in jerusalem-becuase most states do NOT recognize Israel right to the city as a whole. I would declare those settlements as illegal as the rest on the other side of the green line. LOTM - Then you freely admit that what law is applied, whether or not citizenship is offered, are red herrings???

	04-05-2004 22:30									#111
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark IIRC Israel annexed the Golan in 1982, and applies Israeli civil law there, and has allowed the local population (largely Druze) to apply for Israeli citizenship, this despite Israel clearly being willing to put the entire Golan on the negotiating table.

So we return to my question about the Palestinians. If the Palestinians declare independence on everything on the side of the green line outside of Israel, then claimed any Jews who whish to remain can but as Palestinian citizens, everyone else, BYE, would you see Israel bound by that?

In fact, Israel's actions in the Golan are in line with what I said-their rationale now for why those settlements are not illegal is that they now made it possible for everyone to be a citizen and it is no longer military rule.

	04-05-2004 22:36									#112
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark LOTM - Then you freely admit that what law is applied, whether or not citizenship is offered, are red herrings???

For most states, YES, which is why they don't accept the Israeli solution for the Golan situation.

For me there is a difference in kind, even if for most states it is not, and neither for the International red Cross, or Amnesty International, or every other group that basically also rejects the Israel contention that all parts of the Geneva Convention do not apply.

	04-05-2004 22:38									#113
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap So we return to my question about the Palestinians. If the Palestinians declare independence on everything on the side of the green line outside of Israel, then claimed any Jews who whish to remain can but as Palestinian citizens, everyone else, BYE, would you see Israel bound by that?

No since that would be one claim, and Israel could (and in those circumstances undoubtedly would) assert a counter claim. Which would mean it would be - guess what - DISPUTED territory. And it would be in the interests of peace for all parties to resolve the dispute peacefully, through negotiations. Which, is precisely the situation as it stands today. And the likely peace settlement would be, as it has been since June 2000, the retention by Israel of the border settlement blocks, with compensation to the PA elsewhere.


Back on topic - this is a complex situation of international law and politics. To say that the settlers themselves (apart from actual individual actions) are somehow to be classified as soldiers because of their residence in the settlements is clearly false.

	04-05-2004 22:41									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap For most states, YES, which is why they don't accept the Israeli solution for the Golan situation. For me there is a difference in kind, even if for most states it is not, and neither for the International red Cross, or Amnesty International, or every other group that basically also rejects the Israel contention that all parts of the Geneva Convention do not apply.

Youre arguing simultaneously international law as quoted by most states, and GEPaps world view - I must say it makes it most confusing.

	04-05-2004 22:43									#115
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What an horrible, horrible world

	04-05-2004 22:49									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To revert back to the article- You argue that de-jure the settlements are not illegalby arguing for an intepretation of the law simply on the text. As the author basically states, such an interpretation makes the US lead attempt to destroy the Saddam regime as illegal and illegitimate, a position we know you do not hold.

So, why do we ignore the word of the law when it comes to the Iraqi people but not the Palestinian people?

Unless one decides that the notion there must be a previous soverign is injurious to the people.

	04-05-2004 22:50									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Youre arguing simultaneously international law as quoted by most states, and GEPaps world view - I must say it makes it most confusing.

Got's to keep up.

	04-05-2004 22:51									#118
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Felch Morality is more about the intentions of the actions, and the purpose they are intended to serve rather than a cold-blooded analysis of the end result.

And the intent of the Gaza Settlers, make no mistake about it, is to destroy the Palestinian identity, and absorb their land into Isreal proper. Settling in Gaza is an act of war. If you bring your children to the front, you are responsible for what happens to them.

Does this absolve the shooters? No. But do the Israeli Settlers or government care if their actions end the lives of Palestinian children? Most do not.

I'm afraid I see this very much as the US expansion across Indian lands. They drove the local inhabitants off their land, by force when necessary. If the local inhabitants fought back, it was considered treachery of the worst kind, and a valid pretext for a ten-fold retaliation.

quote: People should be free to live their lives as and where they choose, so long as they abide by the law. Nobody should ever say it's acceptable to kill a civilian just because they followed an invading army. By that perverse and twisted logic, Native Americans should be able to kill European and other Americans, and Aborigines kill Australians.

Rubbish. Whose law? An invader comes in and passes a new law, and you have to abide by it?

By your perverse and twisted logic, the Palestinians should just roll over and give up whatever land the Jews want.

	04-05-2004 23:20									#119
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Felch Just so we're clear on what murder is: Murder is when you intend to kill someone who is defenseless and actually kill them. Manslaughter, what the Israelis are guilty of with the Palestinian civilians, is killing without intending to kill, and self-defense is when you kill someone who is a threat to your life. It is okay for soldiers to kill each other because that is self-defense. Either soldier A kills soldier B or soldier B kills soldier A. Survival requires killing your opponent. Killing settlers is wrong because your survival does not rely on killing them. Either the settler dies or no one dies -- there is a peaceful resolution in that instance. That is why it is wrong to kill settlers, but it is acceptable to kill soldiers.

There is a thing called property rights that Americans seem to be fond of.

I am not an American, nor a lawyer. But it seems to me that you can defend your property with deadly force if you believe a trespasser has malicious intentions:

Every person has a right... to defend:

His own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body,

the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act, which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit any such offences.

Q. Why did they settlers CHOOSE a town in Gaza?

A. As an act of aggression against the (valid) Palestinian claims there.

Like Iraq right now, the line between combatants and citizens becomes very difficult to discern in Occupied lands. Who is a rebel, and who is a freedom fighter?

Killing children?

	04-05-2004 23:22									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap To revert back to the article- You argue that de-jure the settlements are not illegalby arguing for an intepretation of the law simply on the text. As the author basically states, such an interpretation makes the US lead attempt to destroy the Saddam regime as illegal and illegitimate, a position we know you do not hold. So, why do we ignore the word of the law when it comes to the Iraqi people but not the Palestinian people? Unless one decides that the notion there must be a previous soverign is injurious to the people.

The key quote

"The laws of occupation are intended to safeguard the rights of the previous sovereign as well as making humanitarian provisions for the population. Those provisions intended to safeguard the rights of the previous sovereign include provisions prohibiting changing of local laws and prohibiting the altering of the status of local officials and judges. The explicit aim of the US and UK administrations is to change the regime in Iraq, clearly not an aim sanctioned by the laws of occupation. "

Nothing in this states that it was wrong or aggression to occupy Iraq.
It relates only to the implementation of IV Geneva AFTER the war, and to the maintenance of local laws and local officials and judges


Do YOU GePap, think the CPA should NOT support the writing of a transitiaional administrative law, prior to the formal end of occupation??? That IIUC, is the key legal change made by the CPA - nothing else violates IV Gneva that I know of. To hand over sovereignty on the basis of the previous constitution, without a transitional law, would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and I think this is recognized by all concerned. Including the UNSC, the principle states that opposed the coalition actions, etc. It would be a disaster that would be difficult to recover from.

Indeed should the US, UK and France have turned over sovereignty to West Germany based on the pre-1945 laws in place? Should we not have written a new constition for Japan - (before you explain the legal and strategic differences between Gulf War 2 and WW2, Im quite aware of those - the Geneva Conventions make NO reference to the circumstances under which the occupation took place - they apply to the most just of wars - which is why, BTW, Israeli justification of the 1967 war are NOT considered ipso facto arguments against applying the Convention to the West Bank/Gaza?


I think you misread the intent of the author - he is NOT arguing for the application of the Convention to Iraq - he is arguing that the non-huminatarian clauses of the Convention have seldom IF EVER been applied by ANYONE anywhere EVEN WHERE THERE IS A FORMER sovereign- and from that is arguing AGAINST their application to the West Bank/Gaza.

So the answer is as follows

1. The non humanitarian provisions are to be applied ONLY in favor of a former sovereign, but even then NOT when it will lead to disaster for the occupied people. This does NOT imply that they SHOULD be applied when there is NO former soveriegn, simply because it is held that they MIGHT benefit the occupied people. In any case I cant see that the establishment of settlements on empty land, settlements that can be given up, is as harmful to the Pal people as the turnover of sovereignty without a transitional law would be to the Iraqi people ( I freely acknowledge that actions such as building walls and highways on land that require the demolition of houses or farms are a HUMANITARIAN problem in a way that establishment of settlements on vacant land is not - I do NOT defend EVERY Israeli action in the territories, and I DO see that the establishment of LEGAL settlements may have led to the ILLEGAL actions of demolition, etc - I dont like the existence of MOST of the settlements, in case you havent gathered that, and I was deeply disappointed in the result of Sundays referendum)