Nice tryYou people don’t lack for creativity, I’ll give you that!
The fact remains that the West Bank & Gaza were never part of a sovereign Palestinian State, so who was it occupied from????
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
The fact remains that the West Bank & Gaza were never part of a sovereign Palestinian State, so who was it occupied from????
But there has always been a Palestinian people and you are squatting on their land
Nice try
My reply had nothing to do with creativity.
The Court's Opinion is worthless if the reasoning employed to reach that Opinion is littered with unfounded assumptions, an incomplete historical background and erring in law. The flaws stand out.
Last edited:
The courts judgement stands until it's overturned
Israel murdered a man with no legs
Except of course, that the Court expressly determined that in order to find that the territories are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies there, there was no need to go into the precise prior status of the territories.
As the Court stated:
"The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.
The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.
This interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power. Whilst the drafters of the Hague Regulations of 1907 were as much concerned with protecting the rights of a State whose territory is occupied, as with protecting the inhabitants of that territory, the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention sought to guarantee the protection of civilians in time of war, regardless of the status of the occupied territories, as is shown by Article 47 of the Convention."
And then after several further paragraphs of discussion: " The Court accordingly finds that (the Fourth Geneva) Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."
This interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power. Whilst the drafters of the Hague Regulations of 1907 were as much concerned with protecting the rights of a State whose territory is occupied, as with protecting the inhabitants of that territory, the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention sought to guarantee the protection of civilians in time of war, regardless of the status of the occupied territories, as is shown by Article 47 of the Convention."
And then after several further paragraphs of discussion: " The Court accordingly finds that (the Fourth Geneva) Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."
But of course, I totally understand why you would try to muddy the waters. Presented with such a unanimous consensus, 15 judges from 15 different countries (including a British Jew and an American holocaust survivor), who among them issued all sorts of reservations about a whole host of minutiae in the Court's opinion, and yet not one of them issued a reservation regarding any of the points we are discussing (namely that the territory is occupied by Israel, that Geneva IV applies and that Israel is in violation of it), even the most ardent supporter of Israel would be hard pressed to deny it. You're giving them something, however flimsy, to grab on to for comfort. Which is nice.
Agree with you. The verdict is self defeating. Why? Because the "two contracting parties" were Israel and Jordan (that is state vs state)
And EXACTLY why UN 242 doesn't even mention Palestine or defines boundaries.
I'm embarrassed by the ICJ's populist and worse - revisionist agenda.
Last edited:
Old wine in a new bottle doesn't change the fact that it is old wine. Your post doesn't refute my original point.
I am well aware the Court found the Fourth Geneva Convention applicable to the West Bank. But my original point is, the Court arrived at that conclusion because it assumed Israel is an occupying power. (Note: My point does not preclude the Court from drawing the same or a similar conclusion had it fully examined the legal status of the West Bank.)
Feel free to offer a fresh argument.
You realize, that they are all came from the same area, right? Oh, there has been some genetic drift over the millenia, but, originally, they were all the same group of people living in the same area. Some moved out, some were moved out, some stayed, some stayed in the general vicinity.
It's sort of disingenuous to claim that the Palestinians were there before the Israelis, when, if you go back far enough, the Israelis WERE part of the original "Palestinian" group.
It's like if half of all the Amerindians in North America were shipped off to Africa 4,000 years ago, and then they came back, and the half that stayed were outraged that they had come back, with their different culture and religion, and the half that stayed claimed "we were here first".
This seems all a bit pointless. Whatever the legalities, the point is Israel has settled hundreds of thousands of its citizens amidst an Arab population to whom they have not extended the same rights. They are fortunate that, to date, the Palestinians have not come up with a political program of their own which will force the Israelis to face the consequences of the settlement policy and make a decision on what exactly is to be done with that Arab population. Maybe the Palestinians never will.
Thought experiment: imagine if, in response to a hypothetical Palestinian movement for equal civil rights, the Israelis called their bluff and offered citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank - how many Arabs would take it I wonder?
Thought experiment: imagine if, in response to a hypothetical Palestinian movement for equal civil rights, the Israelis called their bluff and offered citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank - how many Arabs would take it I wonder?
The Jewish came from Egypt so are foreigners to the land
Israel dealing with another of their "existential threats", I see...
I was really disappointed many aspects of the Court's reasoning. The Court did itself a disservice. The ICJ had an opportunity to offer a serious Opinion on a number of legal issues, but failed.
I wanted to see how the Court's Opinion differed from my own views and that of other legal minds. Alas, the inadequate historical background, baseless assumptions, and errs in law made for a poor Opinion.
It was UN politics under the guise of law.
Seriously, in every fecking thread (and just to even it up, I feel the same way when I see another @Fearless video/meme). Do you think this is incredibly clever, or do you have any idea of the way Jewish history went (according to their narrative) and how nationalist ideology works?
The Aborigines think the very idea of people owning land is ridiculous. We are here for a brief instant while the land has been here forever. We are merely custodians during our brief lifetimes. Such a shame we end up squabbling over our rights to a piece of it, while we should concentrate on working together to look after it.
I don't disagree with the sentiment.
If they want to bang on about a historic claim to the land, 4000 years etc, it's only right to point out they've got their own history wrong
Yeah I bet. More like 'feck it's gone against us, let's make up any old shit to discredit it'
Excellently put. The murderous Israelis and the headless chicken Palestinians. They're really a match made in hell.
Last edited:
why are the speaking in American accents and in English?
Probably so Trump could follow along....
The Court did not "assume" anything. It stated that the territories were occupied in the following section:
The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power."
In addition, the finding that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies in those territories didn't even rely on the territory being "occupied". To repeat:The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power."
"The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies"
Quite. Standard practice.
In cased you missed my previous post the 'two contracting parties' were Jordan and Israel.
Not non-existent Palestine.
Case closed.
L-R in the middle - Saleh, Hussein, Mubarak and Saddam, sometime in the late 80s/early 90s I guess, probably meeting in relation to the short-lived Arab Cooperation Council.
Last edited:
Yes, the conflict arose between two contracting parties in 1967, therefore the conditions are fulfilled for the Convention to apply.
Please read again the sections from the Court's ruling I quoted in post #327 above which clarifies it very well.
Thanks for proving my point.
There is the Court assuming Israel is an occupying power without having examined (I) the legal status of the West Bank, and (II) the context and circumstances in which Israel entered the West Bank.
The Court applied the law without fully examining the issues.
Last edited:
Didn't Palestine belong to Britain prior to the Balfour Declaration?
Did you miss this part?
The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Or perhaps you're still on your mission to muddy some crystal clear waters. Waters so clear that 15 experienced experts in international law, with over half a millenium of legal experience between them, agreed unanimously on. But I guess they're biased right? I'm sure they're all thinking, to hell with my reputation as top class legal mind. Let's just stick it to the Jews. Even Buergenthal and Higgins, both Jews.
War crimes. Brought to you from "The most moral army in the world." One wonders about the Elor Azaria effect. Perhaps they're thinking, well Azaria got 14 months for getting caught on video executing a Palestinian in cold blood. I'm sure I can get away with a sucker punch. Plus, maybe even the Prime Minister will defend me. I'll be a hero!
No, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. If you go back through the thread a bit you'll find a video I posted of General Allenby entering Jerusalem in December 1917 which is when Britain conquered the region - the Balfour Declaration had been issued the previous month.
The Court's application of the law is premised on the assumption that Israel is an occupying power. Hence the Court's application of the law is potentially flawed.
I am not interested in the combined experience and expertise of the judges. Moreover the background of the judges is irrelevant. I judge the Opinion, like I judge any court judgment of interest, based on the substance.
This is a good article on the reality of every day life in Jerusalem beyond the headlines:
The ties that bind Jerusalem
The ties that bind Jerusalem
So is your claim that the West Bank was always Israeli territory?
Do you think your claim is supported by the people who were living there pre-1967, or pre-1949, or 47, etc.?
Once again, there was no assumption. It cited the Fourth Hague Convention. Right there in the highlighted part. "under customary international law...territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"
Well I'm sure that anyone reading this will take Chairman Woodie's legal expertise over the 15 judges of the ICJ.
I have and it's bollox.
Firstly, as a matter of history, the conflict with Jordan arose in 1948 and wasn't officially ended until 1994.
Secondly, upon further investigation, Jordan wasn't even a high contracting party as the he international community never recognized Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria and therefore had no title to be party to. Simply put, no matter how much the ICJ warps the Fourth Geneva Convention to fit it's agenda, it doesn't apply.
Furthermore, it seems that the ICJ has ignored article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates (San Remo, Balfour which permit Jewish settlement on the so called West Bank)) of the League of Nations are still valid as they are to this day.
You seem to be an expert in international law. The judges of the ICJ clearly don't know what they're doing.
You seem to be an expert in international law. The judges of the ICJ clearly don't know what they're doing.
They do when it suits them. Their own application of article 80 of the UN Charter states is wishy washy at best - OK for the likes of Namibia in 1971 but not Israel it would seem....
Judge El Araby of the International Court of Justice in regard to the legal status of the West Bank in the Israeli security barrier advisory opinion:
“,,, the international legal status of the Palestinian Territory merits more comprehensive treatment”…
“A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on one or more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently sidestepped….”
“The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain”