HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » Hague Court Opens War Cri...

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 12:53 PM

Hague Court Opens War Crimes Inquiry at Request of Palestinians

Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court opened a preliminary examination on Friday into possible war crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, the first formal step that could lead to charges against Israelis.

The announcement by the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, came two weeks after the Palestinians, over the strong objections of Israel and the United States, signed the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the court in The Hague.

Ms. Bensouda’s announcement was expected and did not necessarily indicate that she would pursue charges in her investigations of actions by Israel that the Palestinians assert war crimes.

Even so, the step was almost certain to raise the level of antipathy between Israel and the Palestinians. Their relations were already under severe strain over the long-paralyzed diplomacy aimed at a two-state solution to their protracted conflict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/world/middleeast/international-criminal-court-israel-palestinian-war-crimes-inquiry.html

132 replies, 19183 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 132 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hague Court Opens War Crimes Inquiry at Request of Palestinians (Original post)
bemildred Jan 2015 OP
Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #1
polly7 Jan 2015 #72
polly7 Jan 2015 #73
2naSalit Jan 2015 #2
Fozzledick Jan 2015 #3
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #4
Fozzledick Jan 2015 #5
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #6
Fozzledick Jan 2015 #7
azurnoir Jan 2015 #8
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #10
shira Jan 2015 #28
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #42
shira Jan 2015 #47
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #59
shira Jan 2015 #60
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #88
shira Jan 2015 #89
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #91
shira Jan 2015 #92
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #93
shira Jan 2015 #94
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #95
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #97
shira Jan 2015 #98
oberliner Jan 2015 #99
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #100
oberliner Jan 2015 #101
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #102
oberliner Jan 2015 #103
shira Jan 2015 #105
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #106
shira Jan 2015 #107
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #109
shira Jan 2015 #110
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #128
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #129
shira Jan 2015 #130
shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #131
shira Jan 2015 #132
shira Jan 2015 #20
azurnoir Jan 2015 #22
shira Jan 2015 #24
azurnoir Jan 2015 #31
shira Jan 2015 #37
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #125
shira Jan 2015 #126
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #127
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #9
shira Jan 2015 #27
azurnoir Jan 2015 #32
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #40
shira Jan 2015 #46
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #49
shira Jan 2015 #51
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #50
shira Jan 2015 #52
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #53
shira Jan 2015 #54
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #55
shira Jan 2015 #56
Manny Man Jan 2015 #57
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #58
shira Jan 2015 #21
azurnoir Jan 2015 #23
shira Jan 2015 #26
azurnoir Jan 2015 #29
shira Jan 2015 #36
azurnoir Jan 2015 #38
shira Jan 2015 #39
azurnoir Jan 2015 #41
azurnoir Jan 2015 #43
shira Jan 2015 #48
azurnoir Jan 2015 #61
shira Jan 2015 #62
azurnoir Jan 2015 #63
shira Jan 2015 #64
azurnoir Jan 2015 #66
shira Jan 2015 #67
azurnoir Jan 2015 #70
shira Jan 2015 #77
azurnoir Jan 2015 #79
azurnoir Jan 2015 #68
shira Jan 2015 #69
azurnoir Jan 2015 #71
shira Jan 2015 #78
azurnoir Jan 2015 #80
shira Jan 2015 #90
azurnoir Jan 2015 #81
shira Jan 2015 #113
azurnoir Jan 2015 #104
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #108
azurnoir Jan 2015 #111
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #114
shira Jan 2015 #115
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #116
shira Jan 2015 #117
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #118
shira Jan 2015 #119
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #120
shira Jan 2015 #121
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #122
azurnoir Jan 2015 #123
shira Jan 2015 #124
King_David Jan 2015 #45
azurnoir Jan 2015 #75
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #96
hack89 Jan 2015 #11
Fozzledick Jan 2015 #12
hack89 Jan 2015 #13
azurnoir Jan 2015 #16
hack89 Jan 2015 #25
azurnoir Jan 2015 #30
hack89 Jan 2015 #33
azurnoir Jan 2015 #34
hack89 Jan 2015 #35
azurnoir Jan 2015 #65
hack89 Jan 2015 #76
Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #83
King_David Jan 2015 #14
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #15
azurnoir Jan 2015 #17
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #18
King_David Jan 2015 #19
Manny Man Jan 2015 #84
King_David Jan 2015 #85
Manny Man Jan 2015 #86
King_David Jan 2015 #87
Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #82
ncjustice80 Jan 2015 #44
polly7 Jan 2015 #74
azurnoir Jan 2015 #112

Response to bemildred (Original post)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:00 PM

1. Oh, so now we know why all the puzzling outrage at a recognized world entity merely wanting to

join the...audible gasp....the evil International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Blasphemy!

What an outrage that these "people" would seek justice, obviously severe sanctions are called for, say the free speech heroes of the West, man the barricades, do not let "them" in........say the freedom loving West.

The Republicans are all for sanctions on these evil folks seeking justice, are liberals with them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:06 AM

72. Right on Fred! +1000. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #72)


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:04 PM

2. Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:07 PM

3. Are they starting with who chose to violate the peace of the world with aggressive war?

Or are they getting a free pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:52 PM

4. Are you referring to the Nakba, fozz?

 

We all know who kicked out who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:06 PM

5. We all know who started the war to drive who into the sea

no matter how stubbornly you refuse to admit the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:19 PM

6. We all know that population transfers are illegal as well.

 

Some just refuse to admit that since it screws up their land theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:25 PM

7. And we all know that voluntary immigration and settlement is not forced population transfer.

As always your output has a Boolean value of zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:37 PM

8. and there in lies your problem the forcable only applies to the people under occupation

not the civilian population of the occupying power

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:54 PM

10. Just wait. The inevitable deflection or tantrum

 

that article 49, that the Geneva convention, that international law somehow doesn't apply to Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:45 PM

28. For BDS cherry pickers, here's Geneva 49 in context...

 

ARTICLE 49 (LINK)

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


BDS'ers always quote the last part in bold, but never the first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:56 PM

42. HAHAHAHAHAHA Did you even read what you posted??? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 


The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


You're really a class act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:37 PM

47. Look at #46 and have a laugh at that one....

 

You're so out of your depth, it's ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 11:07 PM

59. Let's look at your major fail instead. AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Did you even read what you posted??? AHAHAHAHAHAHA


The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 11:30 PM

60. Here are plenty of examples of population transfer, including Palestine...

 

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:08 AM - Edit history (2)

None of which come close to the situation WRT Israeli settlers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer#Issues_arising_from_population_transfer

Transferring a population is not the same as allowing or permitting.

As I told you before, that last sentence in Article 49 refers to situations like Nazi transfers of its own citizens (Jews) into occupied Poland. Examples being concentration camps at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Sobibor - all in occupied Poland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:45 AM

88. if anything, that contravenes your narrative

the fact that forceful is used in the first instance but not in the second would tend to indicate that the transfer of population into occupied territory is not required to be forceful in order to be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #88)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 09:12 AM

89. Look at all the following examples of transfer....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer#Issues_arising_from_population_transfer

1. You'll find NONE of the situations described come remotely close to the Israeli settlement situation.

2. In fact - Palestine is brought up in that link, but not the settler situation.



The reason is that Israel allows or permits - but does not transfer - its citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #89)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:18 PM

91. Hitler didn't forcefully transfer Germans

to the sudentenland either, he simply encouraged them to move there, but that is held up as the primary example of what article 46 is supposed to prohibit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #91)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 08:15 PM

92. Nice Hitler reference. Doesn't change the fact that all those examples....

 

....show nothing remotely close to the Israeli settler situation.

You guys are simply wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #92)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:18 PM

93. Sometimes the despot fits, poor shira.

 

But let's be honest.

Great tyrants have always moved their population(s) and way of life in to fill the needs of empire.

The Romans moved their citizens in to choice areas and other people out. See 70 AD for reference.

The English did it.

The Russians did it.

The Nazis did it.


Israel is just fulfilling its own empire in the same way as other regimes have done in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #93)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 10:23 PM

94. Total nonsense. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #94)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:08 PM

95. Actually it fits better than you will ever openly admit.

 


Anything for empire...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 07:40 AM

97. its quite similar, actually

israel/hitler annexed chunks of the west bank/sudetenland, prevented palestinians/czechs from entering and encouraged instead ethnic Germans/Jews to move to those annexed areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:15 PM

98. Again, wrong. Germany had no rights to ANY of the Sudetenland....

 

Germans had no rights to move there due to Germany's policies.

OTOH, the Jews have every right to live anywhere west of the Jordan River according to International Law that pre-dates the establishment of Israel in '48. And Israel hasn't annexed the W.Bank or Gaza.

You'd be MUCH closer to the mark with Israel's occupation of the Sinai and Golan Heights.

Also, Israel doesn't stop anyone - especially Israeli Arabs - from moving into the W.Bank. It's not only Jews who are encouraged or allowed to move there.

Lastly, Israel has offered to end its occupation and settlements several times since 1999. The Palestinians (and Syrians) refused b/c they prefer to remain in a state of war against Israel. This is nothing like the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia.

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

That's why you won't find Israel's settlement policy as an example of transfer along with all other examples on that page - or any other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:17 PM

99. Some people really like introducing Hitler/Nazis into this discussion

 

It seems to be a favorite comparison for some folks for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:24 PM

100. Well, when the boot fits...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:27 PM

101. The implication of your post is that modern day Israel and Nazi Germany are similar

 

Do you stand behind that implication?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #101)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:36 PM

102. Oh, Israel is similar to many repressive regimes.

 

They all have their similarities with having a perceived sub-group they can abuse and scapegoat, IMHO.

The 19th century Americans had the First Nations, African Slaves, Chinese, Irish, Italians...etc.

The British had the Scotts and Irish.

The French had the Vietnamese.

The Russians had their serfs.

The Germans had everybody.

The Khmer Rouge had the educated.

The Israelis have the Palestinians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #102)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:50 PM

103. OK

 

That helps to get a fuller sense of where you are coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 07:40 PM

105. They don't compare any other people/state to the Nazis.

 

For some reason.

I wonder why...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:41 PM

106. The Sudentenland was majority-German since Roman times

probably for the best part of 2000 years. The German attachment to Bohemia, for instance, is at least as well attested as any Jewish claim to the West Bank.

And Israel hasn't annexed the W.Bank or Gaza.


They've annexed parts of it. Hitler didn't annex the whole of Czechoslovakia either.

There was nothing to stop German citizens of Czech or Polish heritage from moving to the Sudentenland, as far as I am aware. Of course those that did were virtually all ethnic Germans, and West Bank settlers are virtually all Jews.

The argument that the Balfour declaration and the League of Nations entitled Jews to annex land wherever they wanted in Palestine is something we have had tiresome arguments about before. It is sufficient to say that the architects of that declaration explicitly contradicted it in the 1922 white paper:-

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."

'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine."

'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sčvres, is not susceptible of change.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:24 PM

107. You're confused about Balfour...

 

What you're alluding to is that Jews shouldn't make the whole entirety of Palestine (including what is now Jordan) their national homeland. That has nothing to do with a Jewish homeland west of the Jordan River.

Germany had no right to the Sudetenland. The ethnic Germans living there did have a right to stay, but they lost it once WW2 was over since the Czechs wanted them all out due to Germany's behavior towards Czechoslovakia.

Hitler annexed the Sudetenland, not the entirety of Czechoslovakia. Israel's situation is much different as they've annexed only Jerusalem WRT the Palestinians.

You're still ignoring the fact that Israel has offered to end the occupation of the W.Bank, give E.Jerusalem back to the Palestinians, and also give back the Golan. However, Israel's enemies would have no part in that. This is a MAJOR and HIGHLY significant difference b/w Germany and Israel, as Germany in no way would have wanted to give back the Sudetenland in exchange for peaceful relations.

Your argument is crap, as is your lame attempt to equate Israel w/ Nazi Germany. That's something I'm sure you never do WRT any other country in the world. It's just the Jewish state that rates as equivalent to Nazi Germany. That's quite odious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 06:21 PM

109. no, youre confused

you say that balfour entitles jews to settle anywhere in palestine. the 1922 paper clarified that jews would only ever be entitled to part of it, which they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 06:30 PM

110. Yeah, part of it - not Jordan but everything west of the Jordan River.

 

In the 1920's, Palestine included Jordan as well as what is now Israel and the territories.

So 77% of Palestine went to Jordan as a result of 1922, while the Jews were to get 23% for their homeland.

23% is part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #110)

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 11:22 PM

128. Your reasoning is fairly sophomoric.

 


But anything for empire I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #110)

Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:35 PM

129. theres absolutely nothing in balfour

to indicate that jews had an entitlement to all territory west of the jordan river. its absolute nonsense to say otherwise. all it said was that a jewish national home would be established in palestine. the white paper confirmed that this was no different from saying that a pizza shop would be established in marrickville - ie it did not confer an entitlement to the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:28 PM

130. Balfour was endorsed by...

 

...the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, drafted at the San Remo Conference in 1920, and adopted unanimously two years later. The mandate recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed the right of “close settlement” throughout “Palestine,” geographically defined by the mandate as comprising land both east and west of the Jordan River (which ultimately became Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel). This was not framed as a gift to the Jewish people; rather, based on recognition of historical rights reaching back into antiquity, it was their entitlement.

Jewish settlement throughout Palestine was limited by the mandate in only one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, acting in conjunction with the League of Nations Council, retained the discretion to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River. Consistent with that solitary exception, and to placate the ambitions of the Hashemite Sheikh Abdullah for his own territory to rule, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill removed the land east of the river from the borders of Palestine.


You already had this discussion with Shaktimaan:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/113438#post44

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #130)

Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:53 PM

131. a non response

again, it completely ignores the white paper, which confirmed that balfour proposed a jewish home IN palestine, not a jewish home OF palestine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 25, 2015, 07:20 PM

132. Oh, sorry. Where is this confirmation in the white paper? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:11 PM

20. LOL...what a crock of horseshit. Here's what deport/transfer really means...

 

It is clear that in its drafting history, Article 49 as a whole was directed against
the heinous practice of the Nazi regime during the Nazi occupation of Europe in
World War II, of forcibly transporting populations of which it wished to rid itself,
into or out of occupied territories for the purpose of "liquidating" them with
minimum disturbance of its metropolitan territory, or to provide slave labor or
for other inhumane purposes.

The genocidal objectives, of which Article 49 was
concerned to prevent future repetitions against other peoples, were in part conceived
by the Nazi authorities as a means of ridding the Nazi occupant's metropolitan
territory of Jews—of making it, in Nazi terms, judenrein. Such practices were, of
course, prominent among the offenses tried by war crimes tribunals after World
War II.3

They were covered by counts in the charter of the International Military
Tribunal of 1945 for the trial of major war criminals, including "deportation to slave
labour or for any other purpose, of civilian population of or in occupied territory,"4
and also (under Article 6[c]) as crimes against humanity, defined to include "murder,
extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts committed against
any civilian population" or "persecution on political, social and religious grounds,"
committed before or during the war in connection with another crime within the
Tribunal's jurisdiction.


http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/images/discourse%202-article%2049%286%29-stone.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:18 PM

22. well that is a creative interpretation indeed

but unfortunately not what is written in black and white

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:23 PM

24. The context of Geneva 49 (look before and after) relates to the Nazis....

 

.....deporting and transferring Jews into or out of occupied territories.

But keep trying with that horseshit!

ETA: Also see post #26 below...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:54 PM

31. The Geneva convention as adapted in 1949 well after the Nazi era

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #31)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:36 PM

37. Yeah, to prevent that shit from happening again. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #37)

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 01:36 PM

125. By anybody, shira.

 

By anybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #125)

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 04:17 PM

126. Are you really comparing the Jewish state to the Nazis? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #126)

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 08:34 PM

127. Did I? Or did I say something completely different?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:48 PM

9. Actually I never mentioned "forced."

 

I guess that's a freudian schlep on your part.

The 4th Geneva convention is pretty clear on population transfers.

Your fail, fozz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:35 PM

27. Here's the part of Geneva 49 that all BDS'ers deliberately ignore....

 

Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention (adopted in 1949 and now part of customary international law) prohibits mass movement of people out of or into of occupied territory under belligerent military occupation:[6]

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


Fozzie 1.

BDS 0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:55 PM

32. BDS 0 just who are you refering to exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:54 PM

40. Do you ever read, shira, or are you blind??? Too bad you didn't cherrypick well enough.

 


The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


Anybody that claims they have the right to invade and colonize another people and their land in this day and age deserve complete ridicule and need to be shown for the savages that they have become.


I really hope that the ICC comes down hard on Israel until it relents in its colonization of Palestine, apartheid and human rights abuses.


Israel deserves everything that it gets.


Fozz + Shira: two zeros.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:34 PM

46. Israel doesn't transfer any of its population....

 

Its citizens volunteer or choose to go their of their own accord.

Also, there's THIS about Article 80 of the UN charter:

This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.


I'm sorry the facts don't support the BDS narrative.

Actually, I'm not...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:44 PM

49. Now that's a complete lie cut from whole cloth.

 

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 05:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Your man date is BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:46 PM

51. Facts are not complete lies or bullshit. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:46 PM

50. "Its citizens volunteer or choose to go their of their own accord."

 


Do you really believe these lies?


So Russians just move as well...of their own accord. And the Russian military backs it up by crushing any opposition.


I guess that Israel = Russia. Right shira.


You really are something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:47 PM

52. How are settlers being forced to live beyond the '48 armistice line? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:48 PM

53. They're invaders, shira. Colonists.

 


They're as evil as their proponents are liars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:51 PM

54. International Law states they have a right to be there....

 

Read it and weep...

According to Article 6 of the Mandate, "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use" was to be encouraged. Article 25 allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying, "nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments."[98]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

The mandate is irrevocable & therefore still in effect despite BDS propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:01 PM

55. The mandate is bullshit shira. The Israelis are illegal colonists.

 


To all reading this...

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law...



That's from your own link. AHAHAHAHAHAHA


You can't even get it right, cherry picker.

What an amateur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:27 PM

56. The Mandate is still in effect due to Article 80 of the UN Charter...

 

It guarantees that nothing can be altered "in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments."

Article 80 was invoked by the ICJ in 1971...

“When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:33 PM

57. Sorry, pal. I have a prediction that you won't like...

 

First time poster to this forum, but a long time advocate, and have been involved in BDS, before I learned the truth of this organization.

BDS is not what it seems. If you saw Paris last week, that's where BDS ends. Any attempts to delegitimize Israel is surely frowned upon right now.

BDS is nothing but anti-Zionist behavior that doesn't even influence or help Palestinians.

Nice meeting you.

-Manny Man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manny Man (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:38 PM

58. Welcome to DU. Just for Fun how long have you been involved in BDS and where?

 


By no means do I want to put you through The Shredder with questions, but it is only fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:14 PM

21. Yes, we all know that. Geneva 49 clearly refers to Nazi Germany's....

 

....deporting and transfer of people like Jews into or out of occupied territory - for example, concentration camps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:21 PM

23. No some professor named Julius Stone claimed that

what we know is what is actually written and seeing as how there are specifics applying to the occupier vs the occupied his interpretation was imaginative indeed, especially seeing as how the law was written well after the Nazi era

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:27 PM

26. It's also one of the drafters of the 4th Geneva Convention....

 

Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal and later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is on record as stating that the convention: "was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people."9

- See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/the-settlements-issue-distorting-the-geneva-convention-and-the-oslo-accords/#sthash.MkTHu5Ia.dpuf


But what does he know?

He was only involved in drafting this Convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:46 PM

29. Morris Abram is also the founder of the Rightwing UN Watch and has been dead for 15 years

he may well have been 'involved' but he was not the writer and his interpretation is just that and nothing else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:32 PM

36. No, he's totally correct as Geneva 49 states clearly.....

 

....that it's about deportation or mass FORCIBLE transfer.

Has nothing to do with the Israeli situation.

See #28 above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:51 PM

38. don't have to I posted the entire thing and seems there a few paragraphs between the dots

but here just for you I'll post it again the italicized part i what was left out in #28 (?)

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #38)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:53 PM

39. Anyone paying attention here knows you deliberately....

 

....left out the part about mass forcible transfer.

And the few paragraphs between the dots do not help your case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:56 PM

41. I didn't leave out a darned thing and look again I reposted it no I'll repost it here too

no wait I'll do it again here

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:00 PM

43. and here to prove your false allegation is post #8 the only one prior to these where I posted art49

8. and there in lies your problem the forcable only applies to the people under occupation

not the civilian population of the occupying power

ARTICLE 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113492722#post8

shira
39. Anyone paying attention here knows you deliberately....

View profile
....left out the part about mass forcible transfer.

And the few paragraphs between the dots do not help your case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113492722#post39



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:39 PM

48. Volunteering or choosing to live there, which is their right by law....

 

...is not the same as them being "transferred" into the W.Bank.

And yes, it's their right:

This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:10 AM

61. goal post changing you level false allegations about what I posted and try to change the subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:37 AM

62. Yep, I missed that. Sorry. My point still stands, however. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:03 AM

63. What that a document from 1920 takes some sort of legal precedence?

a document that by the by also opens Jordan up for Zionist settlement-good luck with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:24 AM

64. Article 80 makes the Mandate still valid today...

 

• ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”34


As to Jordan...

Israeli settlement throughout the West Bank is explicitly protected by international agreements dating from the World War I era, subsequently reaffirmed after World War II, and never revoked since. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” was endorsed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, drafted at the San Remo Conference in 1920, and adopted unanimously two years later. The mandate recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed the right of “close settlement” throughout “Palestine,” geographically defined by the mandate as comprising land both east and west of the Jordan River (which ultimately became Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel). This was not framed as a gift to the Jewish people; rather, based on recognition of historical rights reaching back into antiquity, it was their entitlement.

Jewish settlement throughout Palestine was limited by the mandate in only one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, acting in conjunction with the League of Nations Council, retained the discretion to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River. Consistent with that solitary exception, and to placate the ambitions of the Hashemite Sheikh Abdullah for his own territory to rule, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill removed the land east of the river from the borders of Palestine.

Churchill anticipated that the newly demarcated territory, comprising three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine, would become a future Arab state. With the establishment of Transjordan in 1922, the British prohibited Jewish settlement there. But the status of Jewish settlement west of the Jordan River remained unchanged. Under the terms of the mandate, the internationally guaranteed legal right of Jews to settle anywhere in this truncated quarter of Palestine and build their national home there remained in force.

Never further modified, abridged, or terminated, the Mandate for Palestine outlived the League of Nations. In the Charter of the United Nations, drafted in 1945, Article 80 explicitly protected the rights of “any peoples” and “the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.” Drafted at the founding conference of the United Nations by Jewish legal representatives — including liberal American Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson from the right-wing Irgun, and Ben-Zion Netanyahu (father of the future prime minister) — Article 80 became known as “the Palestine clause.”

It preserved the rights of the Jewish people to “close settlement” throughout the remaining portion of their Palestinian homeland west of the Jordan River, precisely as the mandate had affirmed. But those settlement rights were flagrantly violated when Jordan invaded Israel in 1948. The military aggression of the Hashemite kingdom effectively obliterated U.N. Resolution 181, adopted the preceding year, which had called for the partition of (western) Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Jordan’s claim to the West Bank, recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan, had no international legal standing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:32 AM

66. Unfortunately in accepting the UN partition of Palestine Israel itself negated the aged League of Na

and oh why hide your source behind a hyperlink? I would say Think Israel is acceptable here

http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.belligerentoccupation.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:00 AM

67. UNGAR's like the Partition Plan are suggestions....

 

The Palestinians rejected it, so it's been meaningless ever since.

That 1971 ruling by the ICJ (from my last post to you) shows the Mandate is still in effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:04 AM

70. an advisory opinion is not a ruling it is an opinion nothing more

and link us to the ICJ's website with that opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:26 AM

77. No, that's an ICJ judge's understanding of Int'l Law....

 

Here's the link:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=296&code=nam&p1=3&p2=4&case=53&k=a7&p3=5

It applies to a Mandate about S.Africa still in effect due to Article 80 - just like the Palestine Mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:28 AM

79. and there were a number of different opinions on that issue but at least you admit

your quote was really about South Africa it's a start, btw when did UN partition SA again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:02 AM

68. also you seem to think an advisory opinion is the same as a law not so moreover

when I enter that date in the ICJ website all advisory opinions I get relate to South Africa vs Namibia, and there are many differing ones on that particular subject, so please link us up with the entire subject from the ICJ's website

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:03 AM

69. Nope, that was an ICJ judge in '71 stating the Mandate was still in effect.

 

But what does an ICJ judge know anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:06 AM

71. Can you link us up to the ICJ's website as I said all I get for that date relates to South Africa

and there are many differing advisory opinions for that issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:27 AM

78. Here it is...

 

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=296&code=nam&p1=3&p2=4&case=53&k=a7&p3=5

It relates to a S.African Mandate pre-dating Article 80.

That Mandate was still in effect just like the Palestinian one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:29 AM

80. again it relates to South Africa one opinion is not law and when did the UN partition SA?

there is a difference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 09:13 AM

90. So ICJ rulings are politically motivated opinions?

 

Not necessarily based on International Law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:46 AM

81. and the ICJ's 2004 ruling against Israel's 'security wall' would seem to negate any of your claims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 10:04 PM

113. So again, ICJ rulings are willy-nilly, politically based? Not consistent?

 

Not always based on International Law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 04:14 PM

104. well here's what it says at the link and i does not hold up to your claims

Summary of the Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF
SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH-WEST AFRICA)
NOTWITHSTANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970)
Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971

In its advisory opinion on the question put by the Security Council of the United Nations, "What are the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970)?", the Court was of opinion,

by 13 votes to 2,

(1) that, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory;

by 11 votes to 4,

(2) that States Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration;

(3) that it is incumbent upon States which are not Members of the United Nations to give assistance, within the scope of subparagraph (2) above, in the action which has been taken by the United Nations with regard to Namibia.


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=296&code=nam&p1=3&p2=4&case=53&k=a7&p3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 02:55 PM

108. Thank you. But when you post the truth and the other

 

person continues to lie for empire...well it makes me laugh all the more at their absurdity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 09:13 PM

111. well no response as of yet anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 10:09 PM

114. They're off spreading lies elsewhere.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 10:17 PM

115. You're missing the point. The Mandate for Jews settling anywhere west of the Jordan River....

 

....has never been terminated. Jews have every right to be there.

The situation is not the same WRT S.Africa and Namibia in which S.Africa contended its government had a right (by law) to govern Namibia.

Israel contends that Jews have a right to live in the territories.

Completely different.

-------------------------

And unlike S.Africa, Israel has offered several times to end its occupation and settlements. They've been rejected each time due to PA/Hamas leadership preferring the occupation/settlements over having their own state and making peace w/Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 10:42 PM

116. Nobody believes you nonsense, shira. Go harp you fantasies eleswhere.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 10:47 PM

117. Great substantive response there. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #117)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 10:50 PM

118. Thanks, I know. Right to the point without the need for posting propaganda.

 


You should try it some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #118)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 11:02 PM

119. Not sure you know. Yours was a post offering nothing of value on the topic. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 11:06 PM

120. Perhaps you need some reading comprehension skills?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 11:11 PM

121. My reading comprehension is fine. Your contribution here adds nothing....

 

...of value to the discussion.

If you think what I post is propaganda, then make an argument for that.

Or fold.

At least try to contribute something here other than mocking or attacking your opponents.

You can do it if you try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 11:24 PM

122. No, I believe that your comprehension is lacking, IMHO.

 


Your harmful statements are pretty clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=93283


Palestinian teens are greatly encouraged to be martyrs for the Palestinian cause - by their government and other adults, and sometimes by their parents. Any anti-Zionist who has spent time at a Palestinian protest in the W.Bank against IDF soldiers knows that kids are encouraged to throw rocks and harm others.


I was going to reply, but a Jury had hidden it before I had the chance.

I believe that what you post is rather hateful of a specific group, and I really have to wonder why you hate them so much when apartheid Israel has been kicking them constantly for a generation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #115)

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 03:29 AM

123. But you've been selling that ICJ ruling or a really a dissenting opinion from a 3rd party as proof

the Israeli settlements are legal, when the truth about the ICJ ruling comes out then a goal post change

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=92778

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=92903

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=92897

the ICJ has already ruled against Israel once in 2004 concerning the case of the separation wall, and the UN partition of Palestine negated the League of Nations ruling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #123)

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 06:44 AM

124. You're still maintaining a non-binding UNGA resolution like the Partition Plan....

 

...negated Jews' rights to live across the green line?

The green armistice line didn't even exist when the Partition Plan was voted on.

Since when has the armistice line been seen as a border that doesn't allow Jews to live beyond it?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:30 PM

45. Dare say that in France

Especially now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:08 AM

75. Is that supposed to be some sort of threat or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:30 AM

96. Some people feel compelled to threats when they have nothing to add.

 

At other times they may also play the victim for sympathy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:56 PM

11. A formality. Nothing will come of it

the ICC is not so stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 03:08 PM

12. Most courts take an extremely dim view of frivolous claims

put forth just to make an extremist political statement or to harass their target.

On the other hand, the ICC has an explicit mandate to investigate prolonged campaigns of terrorism against a civilian population with genocidal intent, so this might not go at all the way the Palestinians think it will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 03:17 PM

13. The ICC is a political organization not an independent voice for justice

they are not going to challenge the U.S. head on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 04:42 PM

16. The US isn't a member and has no say bbut do keep hoping

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:27 PM

25. As a member of the UN security council we have a huge say

If President Obama had to choose between Israel or the ICC what choice will he make? Or President Clinton in two years? There is a good reason why the ICC has prosecuted only nine cases, none of which touch on the perceived national interests of any major world power. The iCC will always work at the fringe of world events because they have no real power beyond what countries like America, China, Russia and Europe deign to give them and they know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 06:50 PM

30. once again the US has no say or authority over the ICC period

the UNSC can refer cases but it does not have sole digression

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:07 PM

33. You keep believing that

I bet that the ICC will mildly chastise all parties with appropriately vague language and then do nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:11 PM

34. The US signed the Rome Statutes (again we with drew) when?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:32 PM

35. Never. That is not the point

the ICC will not take on the U.S. or any other world power. They have no real power. They cannot enforce anything against a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The moment they take on a real power and are told to pack sand is the day they become irrelevant- and they know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:26 AM

65. The ICC is not taking on the US though unless you are opining that the US

is officially acting as interlocutor on Israels behalf and I seem to remember seeing similar predictions and pronouncements when the UNGA recognized Palestine as an observer state how'd that one work out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:23 AM

76. Time will tell

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

If, for example, the ICC were to investigate Hamas as well then things might change. Continuing the UN's single minded focus on Israel while ignoring the rest of the world doesn't help the ICC.

I think that if push comes to shove the U.S. will go to the mat for Israel, especially when Hillary takes office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 11:09 AM

83. When did America ever have no say over anything...that was a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 03:20 PM

14. Most courts yes but there will be Zero Fairness toward Israel by the ICC

It is still a Jewish State

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 04:31 PM

15. Do you want some dip to go

 

with the 200 pound chip on your shoulder?

Speaking of shoulders, Israel bears a lot of responsibility WRT all the illegal colonization of the West Bank as well as the apartheid state it has created.


And you complain about zero fairness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 04:43 PM

17. oddly ...........

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu panned the decision by International Criminal Court’s prosecutor on Friday to open an initial probe into alleged war crimes committed against Palestinians, including during last summer’s Gaza conflict, with Liberman calling to dismantle the court.

He said the decision was “solely motivated by political anti-Israel considerations,” and that Israel would not tolerate it, adding that he would recommend against cooperating with the probe.

“Israel will act in the international sphere to bring about the dismantling of this court which represents hypocrisy and gives impetus to terror,” Liberman continued in a statement released to the press.

Netanyahu also blasted the decision, accusing the ICC of being “part of the problem.”

“It’s scandalous that mere days after terrorists massacred Jews in France, the ICC prosecutor opens a probe against the Jewish state. And this is because we defend our citizens from Hamas, a terror group that signed a unity pact with the Palestinian Authority and war criminals who fired thousands of rockets at Israeli citizens,” charged the prime minister


http://www.timesofisrael.com/fm-calls-to-dismantle-icc-after-launch-of-war-crimes-probe/#ixzz3P1FPi4Gh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 04:56 PM

18. My, how the hyperbole flows out of Israel

 


now that the ICC is involved.

Of course they want to dismantle the court now that they may be seen as war criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 04:57 PM

19. So ? they idiots but got this right ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:07 PM

84. No it's not.

 

It's a multiethnic democracy where every Israelis regardless of religion, have the same right.

However, it is true that Israel has a Jewish majority. That's where it ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manny Man (Reply #84)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:53 PM

85. Sounds like you are a world Arbiter? World Authority ? Decider of All ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:04 PM

86. No. I'm not...

 

I just hate to see the definition of the Jewish state go unanswered. Even Wiki says so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manny Man (Reply #86)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:17 PM

87. 'Even Wiki says so'

Okay… That settles it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 11:08 AM

82. No idea what the ICC does or the nature of this complaint and its investigative procedure, do you?

If the IDF and its political commanders have nothing to hide and conduct "humane war", what is the problem for the most humane army in the history of the world?

And such a transparent army, press releases dripping truth daily, remember?

Remember who loudly and proudly claimed that as hundreds of children died in their sleep?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:09 PM

44. Good to know.

Will we see war crimials swinging from the gallows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:07 AM

74. It's about time. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Thu Jan 22, 2015, 09:45 PM

112. Kick n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread