Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
43. and here to prove your false allegation is post #8 the only one prior to these where I posted art49
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:00 PM
Jan 2015

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



Oh, so now we know why all the puzzling outrage at a recognized world entity merely wanting to Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #1
Right on Fred! +1000. nt. polly7 Jan 2015 #72
This message was self-deleted by its author polly7 Jan 2015 #73
Good. 2naSalit Jan 2015 #2
Are they starting with who chose to violate the peace of the world with aggressive war? Fozzledick Jan 2015 #3
Are you referring to the Nakba, fozz? R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #4
We all know who started the war to drive who into the sea Fozzledick Jan 2015 #5
We all know that population transfers are illegal as well. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #6
And we all know that voluntary immigration and settlement is not forced population transfer. Fozzledick Jan 2015 #7
and there in lies your problem the forcable only applies to the people under occupation azurnoir Jan 2015 #8
Just wait. The inevitable deflection or tantrum R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #10
For BDS cherry pickers, here's Geneva 49 in context... shira Jan 2015 #28
HAHAHAHAHAHA Did you even read what you posted??? AHAHAHAHAHAHA R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #42
Look at #46 and have a laugh at that one.... shira Jan 2015 #47
Let's look at your major fail instead. AHAHAHAHAHAHA! R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #59
Here are plenty of examples of population transfer, including Palestine... shira Jan 2015 #60
if anything, that contravenes your narrative shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #88
Look at all the following examples of transfer.... shira Jan 2015 #89
Hitler didn't forcefully transfer Germans shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #91
Nice Hitler reference. Doesn't change the fact that all those examples.... shira Jan 2015 #92
Sometimes the despot fits, poor shira. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #93
Total nonsense. n/t shira Jan 2015 #94
Actually it fits better than you will ever openly admit. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #95
its quite similar, actually shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #97
Again, wrong. Germany had no rights to ANY of the Sudetenland.... shira Jan 2015 #98
Some people really like introducing Hitler/Nazis into this discussion oberliner Jan 2015 #99
Well, when the boot fits... R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #100
The implication of your post is that modern day Israel and Nazi Germany are similar oberliner Jan 2015 #101
Oh, Israel is similar to many repressive regimes. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #102
OK oberliner Jan 2015 #103
They don't compare any other people/state to the Nazis. shira Jan 2015 #105
The Sudentenland was majority-German since Roman times shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #106
You're confused about Balfour... shira Jan 2015 #107
no, youre confused shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #109
Yeah, part of it - not Jordan but everything west of the Jordan River. shira Jan 2015 #110
Your reasoning is fairly sophomoric. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #128
theres absolutely nothing in balfour shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #129
Balfour was endorsed by... shira Jan 2015 #130
a non response shaayecanaan Jan 2015 #131
Oh, sorry. Where is this confirmation in the white paper? n/t shira Jan 2015 #132
LOL...what a crock of horseshit. Here's what deport/transfer really means... shira Jan 2015 #20
well that is a creative interpretation indeed azurnoir Jan 2015 #22
The context of Geneva 49 (look before and after) relates to the Nazis.... shira Jan 2015 #24
The Geneva convention as adapted in 1949 well after the Nazi era azurnoir Jan 2015 #31
Yeah, to prevent that shit from happening again. n/t shira Jan 2015 #37
By anybody, shira. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #125
Are you really comparing the Jewish state to the Nazis? n/t shira Jan 2015 #126
Did I? Or did I say something completely different? R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #127
Actually I never mentioned "forced." R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #9
Here's the part of Geneva 49 that all BDS'ers deliberately ignore.... shira Jan 2015 #27
BDS 0 just who are you refering to exactly? azurnoir Jan 2015 #32
Do you ever read, shira, or are you blind??? Too bad you didn't cherrypick well enough. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #40
Israel doesn't transfer any of its population.... shira Jan 2015 #46
Now that's a complete lie cut from whole cloth. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #49
Facts are not complete lies or bullshit. n/t shira Jan 2015 #51
"Its citizens volunteer or choose to go their of their own accord." R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #50
How are settlers being forced to live beyond the '48 armistice line? n/t shira Jan 2015 #52
They're invaders, shira. Colonists. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #53
International Law states they have a right to be there.... shira Jan 2015 #54
The mandate is bullshit shira. The Israelis are illegal colonists. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #55
The Mandate is still in effect due to Article 80 of the UN Charter... shira Jan 2015 #56
Sorry, pal. I have a prediction that you won't like... Manny Man Jan 2015 #57
Welcome to DU. Just for Fun how long have you been involved in BDS and where? R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #58
Yes, we all know that. Geneva 49 clearly refers to Nazi Germany's.... shira Jan 2015 #21
No some professor named Julius Stone claimed that azurnoir Jan 2015 #23
It's also one of the drafters of the 4th Geneva Convention.... shira Jan 2015 #26
Morris Abram is also the founder of the Rightwing UN Watch and has been dead for 15 years azurnoir Jan 2015 #29
No, he's totally correct as Geneva 49 states clearly..... shira Jan 2015 #36
don't have to I posted the entire thing and seems there a few paragraphs between the dots azurnoir Jan 2015 #38
Anyone paying attention here knows you deliberately.... shira Jan 2015 #39
I didn't leave out a darned thing and look again I reposted it no I'll repost it here too azurnoir Jan 2015 #41
and here to prove your false allegation is post #8 the only one prior to these where I posted art49 azurnoir Jan 2015 #43
Volunteering or choosing to live there, which is their right by law.... shira Jan 2015 #48
goal post changing you level false allegations about what I posted and try to change the subject? azurnoir Jan 2015 #61
Yep, I missed that. Sorry. My point still stands, however. n/t shira Jan 2015 #62
What that a document from 1920 takes some sort of legal precedence? azurnoir Jan 2015 #63
Article 80 makes the Mandate still valid today... shira Jan 2015 #64
Unfortunately in accepting the UN partition of Palestine Israel itself negated the aged League of Na azurnoir Jan 2015 #66
UNGAR's like the Partition Plan are suggestions.... shira Jan 2015 #67
an advisory opinion is not a ruling it is an opinion nothing more azurnoir Jan 2015 #70
No, that's an ICJ judge's understanding of Int'l Law.... shira Jan 2015 #77
and there were a number of different opinions on that issue but at least you admit azurnoir Jan 2015 #79
also you seem to think an advisory opinion is the same as a law not so moreover azurnoir Jan 2015 #68
Nope, that was an ICJ judge in '71 stating the Mandate was still in effect. shira Jan 2015 #69
Can you link us up to the ICJ's website as I said all I get for that date relates to South Africa azurnoir Jan 2015 #71
Here it is... shira Jan 2015 #78
again it relates to South Africa one opinion is not law and when did the UN partition SA? azurnoir Jan 2015 #80
So ICJ rulings are politically motivated opinions? shira Jan 2015 #90
and the ICJ's 2004 ruling against Israel's 'security wall' would seem to negate any of your claims azurnoir Jan 2015 #81
So again, ICJ rulings are willy-nilly, politically based? Not consistent? shira Jan 2015 #113
well here's what it says at the link and i does not hold up to your claims azurnoir Jan 2015 #104
Thank you. But when you post the truth and the other R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #108
well no response as of yet anyway azurnoir Jan 2015 #111
They're off spreading lies elsewhere. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #114
You're missing the point. The Mandate for Jews settling anywhere west of the Jordan River.... shira Jan 2015 #115
Nobody believes you nonsense, shira. Go harp you fantasies eleswhere. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #116
Great substantive response there. n/t shira Jan 2015 #117
Thanks, I know. Right to the point without the need for posting propaganda. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #118
Not sure you know. Yours was a post offering nothing of value on the topic. n/t shira Jan 2015 #119
Perhaps you need some reading comprehension skills? R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #120
My reading comprehension is fine. Your contribution here adds nothing.... shira Jan 2015 #121
No, I believe that your comprehension is lacking, IMHO. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #122
But you've been selling that ICJ ruling or a really a dissenting opinion from a 3rd party as proof azurnoir Jan 2015 #123
You're still maintaining a non-binding UNGA resolution like the Partition Plan.... shira Jan 2015 #124
Dare say that in France King_David Jan 2015 #45
Is that supposed to be some sort of threat or what? azurnoir Jan 2015 #75
Some people feel compelled to threats when they have nothing to add. R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #96
A formality. Nothing will come of it hack89 Jan 2015 #11
Most courts take an extremely dim view of frivolous claims Fozzledick Jan 2015 #12
The ICC is a political organization not an independent voice for justice hack89 Jan 2015 #13
The US isn't a member and has no say bbut do keep hoping azurnoir Jan 2015 #16
As a member of the UN security council we have a huge say hack89 Jan 2015 #25
once again the US has no say or authority over the ICC period azurnoir Jan 2015 #30
You keep believing that hack89 Jan 2015 #33
The US signed the Rome Statutes (again we with drew) when? azurnoir Jan 2015 #34
Never. That is not the point hack89 Jan 2015 #35
The ICC is not taking on the US though unless you are opining that the US azurnoir Jan 2015 #65
Time will tell hack89 Jan 2015 #76
When did America ever have no say over anything...that was a good one. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #83
Most courts yes but there will be Zero Fairness toward Israel by the ICC King_David Jan 2015 #14
Do you want some dip to go R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #15
oddly ........... azurnoir Jan 2015 #17
My, how the hyperbole flows out of Israel R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2015 #18
So ? they idiots but got this right ... King_David Jan 2015 #19
No it's not. Manny Man Jan 2015 #84
Sounds like you are a world Arbiter? World Authority ? Decider of All ? King_David Jan 2015 #85
No. I'm not... Manny Man Jan 2015 #86
'Even Wiki says so' King_David Jan 2015 #87
No idea what the ICC does or the nature of this complaint and its investigative procedure, do you? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #82
Good to know. ncjustice80 Jan 2015 #44
It's about time. nt. polly7 Jan 2015 #74
Kick n/t azurnoir Jan 2015 #112
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»Hague Court Opens War Cri...»Reply #43