Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Well, Israel offered citizenship to the Palestinians living in east Jerusalem when it annexed it, but most places don't recognize east Jerusalem as part of Israel.

Jerusalme (and bethlehem) werte not given either side in 1948, and most states have stayed with that decision (hence, the fact that few if any states recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel).

[Ned]

gsmoove, whether the settlements are "illegal" under the 4th Geneva Convention should, IMHO, be a question decided by a court after a full opportunity to be heard by interested parties. I do not believe Israel was given due process here when the resolution you cited was passed.

But to demonstrate the UN bias, can you find any resolutions condemning the use of terrorism against Israel? I think all would agree that terrorism is a violation of a host of universal treaties. Yet not a peep from the UN?

Regardless of the fairness, the resolution you cited on the settlements is the only resolution on this issue that the US did not veto, IIRC. Why it did not veto the resolution is a wonder. But it did not.

So the matter remains as follows: The settlements violate a UNSC resolution. Terrorism violates the laws of war. Both should end.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


They were recognized in 1950

Source?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
But to demonstrate the UN bias, can you find any resolutions condemning the use of terrorism against Israel? I think all would agree that terrorism is a violation of a host of universal treaties. Yet not a peep from the UN?

Actually Ned, every single UN SC resolution dealing with this issue for many years now has condemend Palestinains violence. So actually, I could say that at least half a dozen UN resolutions condem palestinians terrorism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Source?

I know what i knows' look it up, i don;t have the time, and if you don;t care too, don;t believe me, i don;t care.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Jerusalme (and bethlehem) werte not given either side in 1948,

So then it doesn't matter whether Israel gives citizenship or annexs the territories or whatever, since the 1948 borders are permanent and forever - is that what you're saying?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

I know what i knows' look it up, i don;t have the time, and if you don;t care too, don;t believe me, i don;t care.

Then I'll assume it's false, because I've never heard of the 1948 borders becoming permanent borders in 1950.
(It also doesn't mke much sense, because the 1948 borders would have included a Palestinian state, on ethat is certainly not recognized by the rest of the world...)

[GePap]

No, I was answering your query about jerusalem and most countries.

The borders that came about in 1949-50 are the recognized borders of the states in the region. Look at a map not from either side (ie, everyone elses).

The Egyptians never claimed Gaza as thier own, had it under military rule, and in theory, it remained the olnly bit of the Arab states to be created in Palestine in 1947. Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank in the mid 80's ( a claim that the Arab league had denounced Jordan for making and enforcing), but Jordan never gave custody then to Israel. So neither Gaza nor the west bank are recognized by any nation of the world (including the US) to be a part of israel, but isnetad territories who's final stautes is yet to be determined, but under israeli military occupation, and hence under the Geneva convention.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
No, I was answering your query about jerusalem and most countries.

The borders that came about in 1949-50 are the recognized borders of the states in the region. Look at a map not from either side (ie, everyone elses).

No. Those were cease fire lines only. Not borders. Remember, all of the countries were only ever in a state of cease-fire with Israel, and still technically at war. (with the exception of Iraq, which has always in a state of war with Israel, with no ceasefire. I wonder if they'll bother to make a ceasefire treaty now...) 242 was created, in part, to make permanent and secure borders (through peaceful means) for all sides.

The Egyptians never claimed Gaza as thier own, had it under military rule, and in theory, it remained the olnly bit of the Arab states to be created in Palestine in 1947. Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank in the mid 80's ( a claim that the Arab league had denounced Jordan for making and enforcing), but Jordan never gave custody then to Israel.

But Jordan's "claim" to the west bank is no different than Israel's and was no more (or less) legitimate.

[GePap]

On settlements:

The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.

from:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/overview.htm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
On settlements:

The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.

from:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/overview.htm

those contradict the absence of legal boundaries. I will await a source for the 1950 item.

RE: 242 - yes it called for Israel to withdraw from territories - it did not specify ALL territories - in fact the word "the" was specifically excluded - which makes sense as the territories are disputed, and it was envisioned by the security council that the final boundary would NOT be the 1949 ceasefire line.

[lord of the mark]

"but isnetad territories who's final stautes is yet to be determined, but under israeli military occupation, and hence under the Geneva convention."


final status yet to be determined - IE disputed territories, like i said. The Geneva convention restrictions apply, IIUC, where there is NO disputed about the disposition of territory but there is a purely military occupation IE situations like the current US occupation of Iraq.

Otherwise what are to we make of the legal status of the PA in those areas of Gaza and the West Bank where Israel forces are NOT present - are those considered to be disputed territories under Palestinian occupation? Is Palestinian settlement there banned under the Geneva convention?

No, for the Geneva convention to apply, the territory must be recognized as belonging to someone other than the "occupying" power, and cannot apply in territories whose final status is yet to be determined.

[Eli]

Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?

And just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, I assure you that it wasnt me.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
On settlements:

The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.

from:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/overview.htm

Anyone actually reading the 4th Geneva convention and knowing the history of the territory would have a hard time agreeing that there is a slam dunk case that it applies to Palestine. Acceptance of the principle that it does apply means that the Jews have no right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza. However they had this right during the Mandate. That right had been given them by the Balfour declaration. The Balfour declaration as incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate.

If they lost the rights they formerly had as nationals of the Palestinian Mandate, how did they lose them? Did they lose them because of military action by the Arab states surrounding the Mandate territory. What about the fundamental principle of international law that such rights cannot be lost as a result of military action?

The status of the lands outside of Israel and within the borders of the Mandate are undetermined. In 1948, those lands were offered to the people residing there at the time for the purposed of forming a state. But those people did not form a state, but set about trying to deny the Jews the right to form thier own state. Soon, however, Palestine outside the cease fire lines was occuppied by foreign Arab powers. Israel drove the foreigners out of Palestine in 1967, restoring the status quo ante to 1947-8: undetermined.

It is important to note here that the land upon which the settlers settle is NOT part of Israel. Israel has not annexed those lands. The land remains disputed, as they were in 1947-8.

But the problem is, as we all know, that possession is 90% of the law. This is what concerns the "Palestinians." Even though the lands are not part of Israel, they worry that Israel will never give them up. Given the history of the division of the lands in 1947-8, it is clear that their concerns are well founded.

To the extent that the "Paletinians" want "back"all the land formerly occuppied by Jordan and Egypt, the settlements represent an obstacle to peace to the extent that the Goverment of Israel insist that they instead become part of Israel. This has nothing to do with "legalities." So regardless of who is right on the legal issues, the UN issued its resolutions in 1979 and 1980. Israel should abide by these UN resolutions regardless of the merits of the their legal argument.

However, on the same score, those who support the Palestinian side should simply drop the statement that the settlements are "illegal." That is unnecessary and inflammatory. It is sufficient that the UN has called for a halt.

[gsmoove23]

The fact that it is disputed territory is a strawman as it doesn't change its status as occupied territory (ie, militarily occupied where the original inhabitants are not given citizenship) and the Geneva Conventions do not make a distinction about this. It is also an obvious attempt to change the nature of the dispute while it is still in progress.

Ned, I don't understand how calling settlements illegal is inflammatory when it is true. This was also in the 1979 and 80 resolutions and has been repeated in a number of follow-up resolutions.