B’Tselem: Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to Geneva Convention

[Israeli]

Published: 17 Dec 2014

The High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention held a conference today. In a press release issued after the conference, the contracting parties reaffirmed the obligation of all parties to uphold the fundamental principles of the laws of war, and called on Israel to respect the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention throughout the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem. The High Contracting Parties cited, inter alia, the obligation of the Occupying Power to administer the territory while taking into account the needs of the civilian population, and recalled the illegality of the settlements and the Separation Barrier. They also expressed deep concern over the closure Israel imposes on the Gaza Strip.

The High Contracting Parties also addressed the continued occupation and its impact on the local population. B’Tselem wishes to point out that the occupation, which is meant to be of a temporary nature, is nearing its fiftieth year, with no end in sight. Through all these years, Israel has managed the occupied territory in blatant disregard for the provisions of the Convention: collective punishment, expulsion, destruction of property, settlements, disregard for the needs of the local population and blatant discrimination are all inherent elements of Israel’s policy in the Occupied Territories.

Residents of an occupied territory do not choose the occupying power, and in most cases, it perceives them as enemies. For these reasons, and to prevent abuse of the power of the occupying force, the Fourth Geneva Convention has placed clear restrictions on the occupying power, including the obligation that it see to the interests of the residents living there and protect their welfare, safety and property. Israel has chosen to ignore these provisions and find justifications for breaching them, while enjoying the many advantages of belonging to the “club” of states that have signed the Convention. However, these justifications have been repeatedly rejected by international tribunals and legal scholars, and today, also by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention.

While the resolution passed by the conference is declarative and has no legal ramifications, it does, nevertheless, reflect the illegality of the ongoing occupation and its attendant human rights violations. It also reflects the baselessness of Israel’s claims of compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Israel’s ever deteriorating international status as the violations persist.

Source : http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20141217_geneva_convention

[shira]

1. A one-sided crock of shit...

1. Nothing at all about Israel's security needs, rockets, terror tunnels, suicide bombers, etc.

2. Therefore, Israelis under threat from Hamas maniacs out to kill all the Jews, have no human rights.

3. The rules of occupation demand that Israel governs everything in the territories. It doesn't & none of the human rights imposters would call for Israel to do that in order to deprive the Palestinians of any autonomy.

[Scootaloo]

2. Are you describing your own post, Shira?

The article is citing the Geneva Conventions. You know, a treaty that Israel is party to, which makes it Israeli law? This treaty lays out how the occupying power is to behave, what their responsibilities and duties are. Israel has violated every single one of those duties and obligations.

Also? I'm laughing so hard now. Because last week...

But I'm getting a chuckle over how, all of a sudden, Shira holds that B'tselem is a human rights organization. Ask her next week, see what it is then

[shira]

3. You really need to read the Geneva Conventions WRT Occupation

1. Read up on effective control of territories. What's missing there WRT Israel? I know you can do it.

2. Then again, you believe Gaza is still occupied after every last IDF trooper and all settlers evacuated. So I'm not sure you're going to come back with anything witty and logically consistent and coherent in your response.

3. Whatever you may come up with, riddle me this one: If Israel is an occupier, why isn't Western Sahara recognized by any legitimate organization or other country as occupied by Morocco? Morocco's occupation Western Sahara fits the description of being an occupier better than Israel and Gaza. Morocco has total control of W.Sahara.



If you have nothing in response that addresses the above, then put your big boy pants on and fold.

=================

As to your nonsense, B'tselem is definitely a recognized human rights organization. Just because I believe they're full of shit on many things pertaining to Israeli violations (not all) doesn't logically make them a NON-human rights organization.

You can do better than that.

[Scootaloo]

5. Do I, now?

1) Nothing.

2) Israel exercises military control of Gaza's borders. Two land borders directly, one border by proxy owing to the peace treaty with Egypt which grants Israel final decision on management of the southwestern land border. Israel also exercises absolute control over Gaza's waters, even into international waters. Israel further exercises total control over israel's airspace, which is full of armed surveillance drones piloted by Israelis. Through this control, Israel manages Gaza's economy (actually, prevents it from having an economy) and it regularly exercises its control through military action in the territory. The lack of Israeli security on the ground is actually an abrogation of israel's obligation as occupying power.

3) First, Morocco actually lacks control over the eastern portion of Western Sahara, along the Mauritanian Border. That strip of territory is effectively controlled by SADR (the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.) Morocco actually exercises less control over this strip of territory than Israel does over Gaza, which sort of undermines your attempt at a point. But that's okay, Western Sahara is still regarded as "occupied" because of the portion that Morocco does control - which is the same thing as what makes Palestine occupied by Israel, the same thing that makes Cyprus occupied by Turkey, the same thing that made Lebanon occupied by Israel and then by Syria, the same thing that made Iraq occupied by the United States, the same thing made Georgia and now Ukraine occupied by Russia... Basically you can't point at a portion of an occupied terriotry outside your direct control and try to pretend it means you aren't occupying the territory in question.

3.5) Not sure what you mean by "recognition of the occupation." Occupations don't require international recognition. A territory is occupied or it's not, there's no middle ground where a spot can be under foreign military control but not occupied pending itnernational recogniton. Perhaps you're jumbling up Morocco's occupation of western Sahara with the lack of international recognition granted to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? Well, whatever, the United Nations maintains a mission out there, though the issue was supposed to be resolved in 1991 (sounds familiar, huh?) HRW carries articles from the organization on the situation all the way back to 1998. I'm sure that if you or whatever bullshit source you are using bothered to look (you won't, it challenges your narrative) would find even more than this.

And of course, all of this is your standard evasion from the fact nothing in your prior post had any relevance to anything whatsoever. Israel has obligations as occupying power. it has decided that it does not have to follow laws, even its own.

[shira]

7. Let's take each of your points one-by-one.....

First and foremost....

Here's Amnesty International, which amazingly enough defines an occupation the same way Israel does.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/089/2003/en/7fc9a988-d6ff-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/mde140892003en.html

The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations:

"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 US manual FM 27-10 (para 351) simply refers to that definition. The UK manual (para 503) follows the same line by underscoring that invading forces must have taken the place of the national authorities in the exercise of actual control over a territory.

The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces[font color = 'blue'] coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control.[/font] If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. [font color = 'blue']The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.[/font]

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

The Hague Regulations go even further as occupation means “control within” the territory. Israel has no such control, from 2005.

We can get to your other points after this.

[Scootaloo]

8. Weird thing is, you think that any of that disagrees with me.

As I said; Israel controls Gaza's territory:

- Israel controls Gaza's Israeli borders.
- Israel's navy controls Gaza's waters, as well as the international waters just beyond.
- Due to a treaty with Egypt - and numerous agreements past that - Israel has final say on the status of gaza's border with Egypt.
- Israel exercises total control over Gaza's airspace
- Further, Israel exerts direct military control over territory 300m within Gaza from the Israel border
- Israel regularly brings military force to bear in Gaza's territory

Israel seized control over the territory in 1967, at which time it became occupied by Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew its (illegal) colonies, and the police that served them. It continues to exert military control over the territory to this day, through the methods I just outlined.

This is why amnesty international - the source you are citing here - regards Gaza as occupied territory.

Now, would you like to actually address the OP and its explanation of Israel's obligations to the territories it occupies - Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan? Or would you prefer to go into detail on your claim that B'tselem is "full of shit"?

[shira]

9. It does disagree with you. And you have it backwards....

1. Israel doesn't perform any government duties within Gaza that can be enforced. There's no military there. Israel cannot enforce anything within Gaza. They cannot provide security for civilians oppressed or about to be murdered by Hamas.

2. According to the Hague regulations, Israel simply doesn't occupy Gaza. The very definition of occupied territory calls for things in #1 above. You cannot get out of this.

3. You've mentioned before that Israel SHOULD be performing everything in #1. But you've got it backwards. The borders, airspace, water, etc. is not occupation, therefore demanding #1.

Now here's the demolition against your arguments like airspace, borders, water, etc...

4. There are borders between pretty much all nations that have checkpoints for people to enter. Even among friendly nations like the USA and Canada. That's not occupation. Besides, Israel doesn't have total control over Gaza due to the Egyptian border. How can they have effective control over all borders when they can get in and out of Egypt with ease? No one argues Egypt is occupying Gaza. You have no basis for this being occupation.

5. The blockade against Cuba, for example, was never an occupation. There goes your argument that Israel doesn't allow access to the sea.

6. Regarding airspace, remember the no-fly zone in Libya? Not an occupation according to UNSCR 1793.

7. As to controlling water or electricity in Gaza, Egypt also controls services they provide Gaza. That's not an occupation.

8. As to Western Sahara, the Moroccan government has administrative governmental control that they can actually enforce with the territory. That is the exact definition by the Hague above in #1 at the top of this post. Israel doesn't fit the requirement necessary as defined by the Hague. Morocco OTOH definitely does.


Did I miss anything?

[King_David]

4. It's strange how you put one of these in most of your posts...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=90735

[Scootaloo]

6. I see you discovered the other two letters in the word "you"