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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
For suture reference:

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

The document is quite massive, and I haven't begun to reas it yet. I just post the link so that everybody interested can look at the text in its entirety.

Thank you for posting the link.

[GePap]

It is true that Israeli sovereignty has never been recognized. Its also true that apart from Jerusalem, it hasnt been formally annexed it either, prefering to advance its claims in negotiations. Its also true that Egypt neither claimed sovereignty over Gaza, nor did the nascent PLO claim sovereignty over it, nor did anyone recognize any sovereignty over it. Jordan, OTOH, DID claim soveriegnty over the West Bank, and Pakistan recognized that, but Jordan has since forfeited its claims. So NO one has de jure sovereignty over either Gaza or the West Bank. Ergo its disputed territory, and is not occupied territory per international law.

Ergo the settlements are not violations of the Geneva conventions. Though they ARE obstacles to peace, and any new ones established since the Oslo accords ARE violations of that accords promises not to create unilateral facts on the ground.

Where in the convention does it say that the soverign control of one location must be decided before the convention comes into fore? that is absurd. The land most certainly is NOT Israeli-yet the Israeli army is there-that makes it an occupation, and all the rules on military occupations and war apply. Ther long standing claim the Geneva convention does not apply to these lands is long standing bunk that no one save the Israeli government has ever given serious weight to.

According to your line of thought then, tommorrow the PLA could claim total soverignty over everything beyond the green line and what? You would agree unequivocally that now it is not disputed and all the settlements are illegal? I seriously doubt it.

To make it very simple-this is land that is NOT Israeli, occupied by the Israeli military, hence it is under occupation, hence the Geneva convention applies.

[Guardian]

In regards to the Geneva Convention, I believe the key here can be found in article 3...

Persons taking no active part in hostilities

I do believe this would cover a mother and 4 children in an unarmed vehicle, regardless of where they are and how they got there.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back. Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort.

Of course, if you were brought in your new place at 5 or 10, it is completely different than if you have decided to go there at 25. Because you couldn't weave a sufficient bond with the place of origin.

Interesting a commie in defense of property rights.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
[According to your line of thought then, tommorrow the PLA could claim total soverignty over everything beyond the green line and what? You would agree unequivocally that now it is not disputed and all the settlements are illegal? I seriously doubt it.

IF the PA claimed sovereignty, over say, North Tel Aviv, and the Israels claim to soveriegty over North Tel Avid was not widely recognized, and the PA occupied North Tel Aviv, and the PA planted settlements in North Tel Aviv, than those settlements would NOT be violations of the Geneva Convention, that is correct.

[Gibsie]

The militant praising this says it was a reprisal. I think reprisals are meant to be terrible, so I am not at all suprised that certain people support this sort of thing.

I'd hope that such people are subject to Israeli reprisals, but hopefully not the, "We got the bastard! And four civilians as well, never mind, it was an unavoidable accident" type.

[lord of the mark]

outrage must extend to the deaths of arabs at the hands of terrorists

I present this item from Reuters, about the murder of 4 Algerian peasants.




http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L01155172.htm

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IF the PA claimed sovereignty, over say, North Tel Aviv, and the Israels claim to soveriegty over North Tel Avid was not widely recognized, and the PA occupied North Tel Aviv, and the PA planted settlements in North Tel Aviv, than those settlements would NOT be violations of the Geneva Convention, that is correct.

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.

[DinoDoc]

Why exactly are we arguing if it is Ok to slaughter an unarmed pregnant woman and her children again?

[East Street Trader]

No one posting in this thread says, or thinks, that it is a good thing for a woman and four children to be killed in a hail of bullets.

The differences to be seen in the reactions of various people depend upon whether they are partisans or not.

Those who are Israelis or who side with them express loathing for the killers.

Those who side with the Palestinians point out that this atrocity was provoked by other atrocities commited by individual Israelis upon arabs.

Neutrals could not care less about the provocations - from such a standpoint it is all too obvious that while each side insists on responding to provocation by further atrocities there will be no end to it.

A close examination of who has done what to whom and when is just not going to break the cycle of violence.

Who could not be sympathetic to that woman and to those children. And to the bereaved husband and father?

But if Israelis go on acting as that family did their chance of ever getting on with their neighbours is nil.

That does not justify what happened any more than it will justify the next set of murders carried out by Israelis.

It is just a statement of the obvious.

The writer of the article first posted in this thread seized upon this incident for its propaganda purposes. That is a bad idea in itself but, effective as the article unquetionably is to further inflame the partisan, it is not calculated to engage the neutral. The effect on me is to distract me from my disgust for the gunmen while my lip curls a bit at someone whose first thought is to propagandise.

[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.

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.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
No one posting in this thread says, or thinks,...

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 may have gone a bit overboard though. If so I apoligize.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
The writer of the article first posted in this thread seized upon this incident for its propaganda purposes. That is a bad idea in itself but, effective as the article unquetionably is to further inflame the partisan, it is not calculated to engage the neutral. The effect on me is to distract me from my disgust for the gunmen while my lip curls a bit at someone whose first thought is to propagandise.

But of course the intent of the those who commited the murder apparently WAS propaganda purposes. The woman and her children were murdered on the very day the Likud party was voting on a proposal to WITHDRAW from the Gaza settlements. Which was being opposed on the grounds that the withdrawl was a withdrawl under fire, a concession to terror and therefore a reinforcer to terror. TO which Sharons response was that he had weakened Hamas, and that this was NOT a withdrawl out of weakness. Well, the act of terror VERY probably influenced the vote and thus stopped the withdrawl - since the terrorists DONT want a withdrawl.
Unless the terrorist acts can convince people around the world to crack down on support for Hamas, (to accomplish which requires propaganda) Hamas has every incentive to keep using violence to disrupt ANY hopeful move.

[lord of the mark]

Spiff - if you think settlements are so terrible, shouldnt you be PARTICULARLY outraged at an attack that disrupted a move toward Israeli withdrawl from Gaza settlements?

Hamas - the best friend the Israeli far right has.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
if you think settlements are so terrible, shouldnt you be PARTICULARLY outraged at an attack that disrupted a move toward Israeli withdrawl from Gaza settlements?

I should. Actually, I didn't get the attack was aimed at having the referendum fial. Indeed, these terrorist *******s show once again they couldn't care less about the ordinary people, they care about furthering war and hatred, the very situation that gives them an edge

And indeed, I think Sharon's unilateral move to disband Gaza settlements was a good move. I didn't chime in with the criticism in France (who cares if it is unilateral? It's the frigging best news that came from Israel in years!). I only wish he disbands the settlements that are far off in west bank territory, and gives definitive borders to Israel: no support for any settlement past the (reasonable) border.