Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
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
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)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?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Response to polly7 (Reply #72)
polly7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
2naSalit
(86,646 posts)
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Or are they getting a free pass?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)We all know who kicked out who.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)no matter how stubbornly you refuse to admit the truth.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Some just refuse to admit that since it screws up their land theft.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)As always your output has a Boolean value of zero.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)not the civilian population of the occupying power
ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]
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
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that article 49, that the Geneva convention, that international law somehow doesn't apply to Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You're really a class act.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're so out of your depth, it's ridiculous.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Did you even read what you posted??? AHAHAHAHAHAHA
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)....show nothing remotely close to the Israeli settler situation.
You guys are simply wrong.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Anything for empire...
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It seems to be a favorite comparison for some folks for some reason.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you stand behind that implication?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That helps to get a fuller sense of where you are coming from.
shira
(30,109 posts)For some reason.
I wonder why...
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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.
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:-
'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 Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.'
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But anything for empire I guess.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)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
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)again, it completely ignores the white paper, which confirmed that balfour proposed a jewish home IN palestine, not a jewish home OF palestine.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)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
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but unfortunately not what is written in black and white
shira
(30,109 posts).....deporting and transferring Jews into or out of occupied territories.
But keep trying with that horseshit!
ETA: Also see post #26 below...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)By anybody.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I guess that's a freudian schlep on your part.
The 4th Geneva convention is pretty clear on population transfers.
Your fail, fozz.
shira
(30,109 posts)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]
Fozzie 1.
BDS 0.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)Its citizens volunteer or choose to go their of their own accord.
Also, there's THIS about Article 80 of the UN charter:
I'm sorry the facts don't support the BDS narrative.
Actually, I'm not...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 05:25 PM - Edit history (1)
Your man date is BS.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)They're as evil as their proponents are liars.
shira
(30,109 posts)Read it and weep...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements
The mandate is irrevocable & therefore still in effect despite BDS propaganda.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)To all reading this...
That's from your own link. AHAHAHAHAHAHA
You can't even get it right, cherry picker.
What an amateur.
shira
(30,109 posts)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...
Manny Man
(19 posts)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
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)By no means do I want to put you through The Shredder with questions, but it is only fair.
shira
(30,109 posts)....deporting and transfer of people like Jews into or out of occupied territory - for example, concentration camps.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
shira
(30,109 posts)- 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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)he may well have been 'involved' but he was not the writer and his interpretation is just that and nothing else
shira
(30,109 posts)....that it's about deportation or mass FORCIBLE transfer.
Has nothing to do with the Israeli situation.
See #28 above.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but here just for you I'll post it again the italicized part i what was left out in #28 (?)
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
shira
(30,109 posts)....left out the part about mass forcible transfer.
And the few paragraphs between the dots do not help your case.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no wait I'll do it again here
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
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
shira
(30,109 posts)...is not the same as them being "transferred" into the W.Bank.
And yes, it's their right:
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)a document that by the by also opens Jordan up for Zionist settlement-good luck with that
shira
(30,109 posts)As to Jordan...
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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and link us to the ICJ's website with that opinion
shira
(30,109 posts)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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)your quote was really about South Africa it's a start, btw when did UN partition SA again?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
shira
(30,109 posts)But what does an ICJ judge know anyway?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and there are many differing advisory opinions for that issue
shira
(30,109 posts)It relates to a S.African Mandate pre-dating Article 80.
That Mandate was still in effect just like the Palestinian one.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)there is a difference
shira
(30,109 posts)Not necessarily based on International Law?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Not always based on International Law?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)person continues to lie for empire...well it makes me laugh all the more at their absurdity.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts) R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You should try it some time.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) shira
(30,109 posts)...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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
shira
(30,109 posts)...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?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Especially now.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)At other times they may also play the victim for sympathy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the ICC is not so stupid.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)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.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they are not going to challenge the U.S. head on.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the UNSC can refer cases but it does not have sole digression
hack89
(39,171 posts)I bet that the ICC will mildly chastise all parties with appropriately vague language and then do nothing.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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?
hack89
(39,171 posts)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.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)It is still a Jewish State
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)now that the ICC is involved.
Of course they want to dismantle the court now that they may be seen as war criminals.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Manny Man
(19 posts)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.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Manny Man
(19 posts)I just hate to see the definition of the Jewish state go unanswered. Even Wiki says so.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Okay… That settles it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)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?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Will we see war crimials swinging from the gallows?
polly7
(20,582 posts)