Islamic militants praise 'heroic' slaughter of pregnant woman, 4 daughters

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sorry but the protestations that the woman was a voluntary soldier were a bit nauseating and stank of someone giving justification for the act.

I should have known this thread wasn't one where to debate on the validity of settlers as targets.

I don't want settlers to be killed, especially parents and pregnant mothers. Just like I don't want to see soldiers killed anymore. The act described in the OP is especially heinous, as the killers made a point in peppering innocent children and a pregnant mother with bullets. I think these people are probably on par with the corpse burners and hangers of Fallujah, or on par with the lynchers of the intifada, back when it begun. This act is barbarous, and I never wished to justify it.

However, I misplaced a debate that I deem legitimate (and that would probably deserve its own thread, now that I think of it), on the validity of occupation settlers as military targets, across history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


from 1948 to about 1965, Israel applied military administation to predominantly arab areas WITHIN the green line, notably the Upper Galillee. No international organization, to my knowledge, claimed that the Upper Galilee was "occupied territory" nor that Israeli settlements in Upper Gallilee (of which there were several) were violations of the Geneva Convention. In fact it IS de jure sovereignty that matters, not the form of administration.

HELLO!

You said the magic words-within the green line. Which right now are seen as Israel's borders. That Isarel deciced to apply military law to it as opposed to civil law, which they could have done, was an Israeli decision on their internal matters.

Israel has NO de jure sovereignty to anything outiside the green line. The fact no one else does is irrelevant to the fact Israel does not, so its is bound by the Geneva convention.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


HELLO!

You said the magic words-within the green line. Which right now are seen as Israel's borders. That Isarel deciced to apply military law to it as opposed to civil law, which they could have done, was an Israeli decision on their internal matters.

Israel has NO de jure sovereignty to anything outiside the green line. The fact no one else does is irrelevant to the fact Israel does not, so its is bound by the Geneva convention.

AFAIK the question of the application of the Geneva accords in a situation where no one has recognized de jure sovereignty is not explicitly addressed by those accords. In fact Id be curious if it has come up in any other context than the West Bank/Gaza.

[GePap]

Lets make it simple:

Is Gaza Israeli land? right now, NO.

Is the IDF there by the request of the inhabitants or because of some deal with another state that has soverignty there? NO.

So why one earth would the actions of an occupational army NOT fall under the Geneva convention?

Give me a break

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


AFAIK the question of the application of the Geneva accords in a situation where no one has recognized de jure sovereignty is not explicitly addressed by those accords. In fact Id be curious if it has come up in any other context than the West Bank/Gaza.

Israel's is the only government that buys that line of argument-which of course i no suprise as it is totally self-serving.

Settlements in Gaza and the West bank are as illegal as those in the Golan Heights. You don;t get away with one crime by trying to argue about someone elses-the crimes of Egypt and Jordan in aborting a Palestinian state.

[GePap]

A nice article on this issue in general:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets make it simple:

Is Gaza Israeli land? right now, NO.

Is the IDF there by the request of the inhabitants or because of some deal with another state that has soverignty there? NO.

So why one earth would the actions of an occupational army NOT fall under the Geneva convention?

Give me a break

because the disputed nature of the land does not prejudice the right of one of the parties to the dispute to establish settlements.

Is the West Bank PA land? No. Does that prevent the PA from building housing there? No.

Note further

"Protected persons who are [b] not nationals of the Power whose territory is occupied[b] may avail themselves of the right to leave the territory subject to the provisions of Article 35, and decisions thereon shall be taken according to the procedure which the Occupying Power shall establish in accordance with the said Article. "


The conventions clearly are intended for the case where the territory of a power is occupied by the military of another power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Israel's is the only government that buys that line of argument-which of course i no suprise as it is totally self-serving.

And the government of the US, while it may not explicitly support that line of argument, has always stated that the settlements are objectionable as obstacles to peace, and has NOT called them violations of the Geneva convention.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
A nice article on this issue in general:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php

that article includes the following


"In fact, it appears that no State has ever formally applied the IVth Geneva Convention to territory under its control. The laws of occupation, as they were then, were not applied to the allied occupation of Germany after World War II on the grounds that the Reich no longer existed and therefore there was no previous sovereign whose rights needed protection. "

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


And the government of the US, while it may not explicitly support that line of argument, has always stated that the settlements are objectionable as obstacles to peace, and has NOT called them violations of the Geneva convention.

We also, while we know Israel has nukes, play along with them and don;t place santions on them for having them. So what the US does in regard to Israel is really irrelevant.

As for your response:

yes, and the authoer argues that the problem with the current law is that it does give too much emphasis to there beijng another power in charge. Thought you don;t quote the part about Israel and Jordan and those claims.

Or that the Israeli supreme court has stated Israel should follow the whole, not just admit that the humanitarian provisions apply.

Please, no selective quoting.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



Sorry, but again, what count is NOT a claim of sovereingty. The issue is what LAW applies. What code of law applies in Gaza? Lets take this crime: who has the right to persecute? Is it the PLA? Is it Israeli civil authorities? Is it the Israeli MIlitary? Who has jurisdiction? THAT is what counts. Israeli civil authority does NOT apply to the territories. Neither it seems does PLA law, at least not if an attack is on Israeli,c ause Israel then deserves the right to attack. Israel also carries out military operations in Gaza as well. So, it is the IDF that has final control and jurisdiction, over individual who are not Israeli citizens (in fact, they are not citizens of anywhere), thus it is an occupation by a foreign army on a civilian population. It was so in 1967, it is so today. Either Israel grants all Palestinians citizenship and has them fall under Israeli civil law, or it allows the PLA to delcare independence and then make Pals Citizens of Palestine, or it accepts the fact the Geneva Convention applies, but you don;t get to create a legal limbo for 1.2 million people.

It is as plain as the sun in the daylight sky.

Yoour analysis above is interesting in that it implies that WHERE Israel annexes, applies civil law, and allows the Palestinians citizenship, the settlements would NOT be violations of the geneva conventions.

As you may be aware, this is in fact the case in East Jerusalem, which was annexed (in 1968, ISTR) where Israeli civil law is applied, and where Palestinians may apply for Israeli citizenship (though few have availed themselves of that option) Are you saying that Israeli housing developments in East Jerusalem are in a seperate legal category from those in Gaza and the West Bank?


It would not be difficult to annex the settlements at Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and other areas immediately adjacent to the green line. Israel has refrained from doing so as part of a policy of refraining from unilateral acts that would prejudice negotiations, and harm its relations with the US. However if that is prejudicing Israels standing in international law, that may need to be reconsidered.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


We also, while we know Israel has nukes, play along with them and don;t place santions on them for having them. So what the US does in regard to Israel is really irrelevant.


LOTM - all states interpret international law in accordance with their interests. Those who interpret it in ways unfavorable to Israel do so as well, and their views are no more relevant than US views.

As for your response:

yes, and the authoer argues that the problem with the current law is that it does give too much emphasis to there beijng another power in charge. Thought you don;t quote the part about Israel and Jordan and those claims.

Or that the Israeli supreme court has stated Israel should follow the whole, not just admit that the humanitarian provisions apply.

Please, no selective quoting.

I see nothing in the part about Jordanian claims that supports anything other than what i have said above.

The Supreme Court opinion is unclear - the author says that the ISC has applied all parts of the IV convention to the territories, yet I know of no Supreme Court actions against settlements, which have been established in the territories since 1968. I can only assume that the decision was nuanced wrt settlements.

[lord of the mark]

more from the article GEPap linked to:


"The general lack of explicit willingness by States to apply the IVth Convention would seem strange since that treaty is regarded as a basic text of international humanitarian law. The reason for non-application is to be found, I believe, in the dual nature of the law of occupation itself,. The laws of occupation are intended to safeguard the rights of the previous sovereign as well as making humanitarian provisions for the population. Those provisions intended to safeguard the rights of the previous sovereign include provisions prohibiting changing of local laws and prohibiting the altering of the status of local officials and judges. "

[Lord Merciless]

Palestinians are animals. Why should we treat animals like humans?

I'd like to see Israel drop a big napalm into one of those "chanting Israel's death" demonstration.

[chequita guevara]

Nazi.