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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

Palestinians are clearly humans, and cheering for murder is not generally a punishable act, and of course to punish it by deliberately killing those who do it is reprehensible.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

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.

Jerusalem is special in that neither side, Jew nor Palestinians, were supposed to claim it. There is a reason few if any states have their embassies in Israel in jerusalem-becuase most states do NOT recognize Israel right to the city as a whole. I would declare those settlements as illegal as the rest on the other side of the green line.

NOw, you keep talking about what israel or the US do: OK, here is a simple one. What do you think of the Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights? After all, in that piece of occupied territory you can;t skirt the question by saying there was no provious power-there was, Syria. Yet Israel has created settlements there as well. Do you consider the settlements in the Golam as illegal? If so, what do you think the US policy should be?

[GePap]

Good to see LM fully supports terror and genocide.

Should we send you a big " I love the Reich" poster? Or an Osama one? Which one is your bigger hero?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Jerusalem is special in that neither side, Jew nor Palestinians, were supposed to claim it. There is a reason few if any states have their embassies in Israel in jerusalem-becuase most states do NOT recognize Israel right to the city as a whole. I would declare those settlements as illegal as the rest on the other side of the green line.

NOw, you keep talking about what israel or the US do: OK, here is a simple one. What do you think of the Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights? After all, in that piece of occupied territory you can;t skirt the question by saying there was no provious power-there was, Syria. Yet Israel has created settlements there as well. Do you consider the settlements in the Golam as illegal? If so, what do you think the US policy should be?

IIRC Israel annexed the Golan in 1982, and applies Israeli civil law there, and has allowed the local population (largely Druze) to apply for Israeli citizenship, this despite Israel clearly being willing to put the entire Golan on the negotiating table.

I will admit this does not answer the question of the legal status of Israeli settlements pre-1982, nor does it adequately address the status since 1982.

I would suggest that the answer is clear from the article you quoted. Since no one thinks that these settlements really do prejudice the final boundary (unlike the settlements in the West Bank) they are not really of concern to anyone. Does anyone care about the Green Zone in Baghdad??

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Jerusalem is special in that neither side, Jew nor Palestinians, were supposed to claim it.

LOTM - according the UN partition scheme of 1947, which was DOA. If youre going to invoke that, then Israeli housing in West Jerusalem is illegal, as is Israeli housing in large parts of Israel inside the Green line.


There is a reason few if any states have their embassies in Israel in jerusalem-becuase most states do NOT recognize Israel right to the city as a whole. I would declare those settlements as illegal as the rest on the other side of the green line.


LOTM - Then you freely admit that what law is applied, whether or not citizenship is offered, are red herrings???

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIRC Israel annexed the Golan in 1982, and applies Israeli civil law there, and has allowed the local population (largely Druze) to apply for Israeli citizenship, this despite Israel clearly being willing to put the entire Golan on the negotiating table.

So we return to my question about the Palestinians. If the Palestinians declare independence on everything on the side of the green line outside of Israel, then claimed any Jews who whish to remain can but as Palestinian citizens, everyone else, BYE, would you see Israel bound by that?

In fact, Israel's actions in the Golan are in line with what I said-their rationale now for why those settlements are not illegal is that they now made it possible for everyone to be a citizen and it is no longer military rule.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark LOTM - Then you freely admit that what law is applied, whether or not citizenship is offered, are red herrings???

For most states, YES, which is why they don't accept the Israeli solution for the Golan situation.

For me there is a difference in kind, even if for most states it is not, and neither for the International red Cross, or Amnesty International, or every other group that basically also rejects the Israel contention that all parts of the Geneva Convention do not apply.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So we return to my question about the Palestinians. If the Palestinians declare independence on everything on the side of the green line outside of Israel, then claimed any Jews who whish to remain can but as Palestinian citizens, everyone else, BYE, would you see Israel bound by that?

No since that would be one claim, and Israel could (and in those circumstances undoubtedly would) assert a counter claim. Which would mean it would be - guess what - DISPUTED territory. And it would be in the interests of peace for all parties to resolve the dispute peacefully, through negotiations. Which, is precisely the situation as it stands today. And the likely peace settlement would be, as it has been since June 2000, the retention by Israel of the border settlement blocks, with compensation to the PA elsewhere.


Back on topic - this is a complex situation of international law and politics. To say that the settlers themselves (apart from actual individual actions) are somehow to be classified as soldiers because of their residence in the settlements is clearly false.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


For most states, YES, which is why they don't accept the Israeli solution for the Golan situation.

For me there is a difference in kind, even if for most states it is not, and neither for the International red Cross, or Amnesty International, or every other group that basically also rejects the Israel contention that all parts of the Geneva Convention do not apply.

Youre arguing simultaneously international law as quoted by most states, and GEPaps world view - I must say it makes it most confusing.

[Datajack Franit]

What an horrible, horrible world

[GePap]

To revert back to the article- You argue that de-jure the settlements are not illegalby arguing for an intepretation of the law simply on the text. As the author basically states, such an interpretation makes the US lead attempt to destroy the Saddam regime as illegal and illegitimate, a position we know you do not hold.

So, why do we ignore the word of the law when it comes to the Iraqi people but not the Palestinian people?

Unless one decides that the notion there must be a previous soverign is injurious to the people.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Youre arguing simultaneously international law as quoted by most states, and GEPaps world view - I must say it makes it most confusing.

Got's to keep up.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Felch
Morality is more about the intentions of the actions, and the purpose they are intended to serve rather than a cold-blooded analysis of the end result.

And the intent of the Gaza Settlers, make no mistake about it, is to destroy the Palestinian identity, and absorb their land into Isreal proper. Settling in Gaza is an act of war. If you bring your children to the front, you are responsible for what happens to them.

Does this absolve the shooters? No. But do the Israeli Settlers or government care if their actions end the lives of Palestinian children? Most do not.

I'm afraid I see this very much as the US expansion across Indian lands. They drove the local inhabitants off their land, by force when necessary. If the local inhabitants fought back, it was considered treachery of the worst kind, and a valid pretext for a ten-fold retaliation.

People should be free to live their lives as and where they choose, so long as they abide by the law. Nobody should ever say it's acceptable to kill a civilian just because they followed an invading army. By that perverse and twisted logic, Native Americans should be able to kill European and other Americans, and Aborigines kill Australians.

Rubbish. Whose law? An invader comes in and passes a new law, and you have to abide by it?

By your perverse and twisted logic, the Palestinians should just roll over and give up whatever land the Jews want.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Felch
Just so we're clear on what murder is: Murder is when you intend to kill someone who is defenseless and actually kill them. Manslaughter, what the Israelis are guilty of with the Palestinian civilians, is killing without intending to kill, and self-defense is when you kill someone who is a threat to your life.

It is okay for soldiers to kill each other because that is self-defense. Either soldier A kills soldier B or soldier B kills soldier A. Survival requires killing your opponent. Killing settlers is wrong because your survival does not rely on killing them. Either the settler dies or no one dies -- there is a peaceful resolution in that instance. That is why it is wrong to kill settlers, but it is acceptable to kill soldiers.

There is a thing called property rights that Americans seem to be fond of.

I am not an American, nor a lawyer. But it seems to me that you can defend your property with deadly force if you believe a trespasser has malicious intentions:

Every person has a right... to defend:

His own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body,

the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act, which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit any such offences.

Q. Why did they settlers CHOOSE a town in Gaza?

A. As an act of aggression against the (valid) Palestinian claims there.

Like Iraq right now, the line between combatants and citizens becomes very difficult to discern in Occupied lands. Who is a rebel, and who is a freedom fighter?

Killing children?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
To revert back to the article- You argue that de-jure the settlements are not illegalby arguing for an intepretation of the law simply on the text. As the author basically states, such an interpretation makes the US lead attempt to destroy the Saddam regime as illegal and illegitimate, a position we know you do not hold.

So, why do we ignore the word of the law when it comes to the Iraqi people but not the Palestinian people?

Unless one decides that the notion there must be a previous soverign is injurious to the people.

The key quote

"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. The explicit aim of the US and UK administrations is to change the regime in Iraq, clearly not an aim sanctioned by the laws of occupation. "

Nothing in this states that it was wrong or aggression to occupy Iraq.
It relates only to the implementation of IV Geneva AFTER the war, and to the maintenance of local laws and local officials and judges


Do YOU GePap, think the CPA should NOT support the writing of a transitiaional administrative law, prior to the formal end of occupation??? That IIUC, is the key legal change made by the CPA - nothing else violates IV Gneva that I know of. To hand over sovereignty on the basis of the previous constitution, without a transitional law, would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and I think this is recognized by all concerned. Including the UNSC, the principle states that opposed the coalition actions, etc. It would be a disaster that would be difficult to recover from.

Indeed should the US, UK and France have turned over sovereignty to West Germany based on the pre-1945 laws in place? Should we not have written a new constition for Japan - (before you explain the legal and strategic differences between Gulf War 2 and WW2, Im quite aware of those - the Geneva Conventions make NO reference to the circumstances under which the occupation took place - they apply to the most just of wars - which is why, BTW, Israeli justification of the 1967 war are NOT considered ipso facto arguments against applying the Convention to the West Bank/Gaza?


I think you misread the intent of the author - he is NOT arguing for the application of the Convention to Iraq - he is arguing that the non-huminatarian clauses of the Convention have seldom IF EVER been applied by ANYONE anywhere EVEN WHERE THERE IS A FORMER sovereign- and from that is arguing AGAINST their application to the West Bank/Gaza.

So the answer is as follows

1. The non humanitarian provisions are to be applied ONLY in favor of a former sovereign, but even then NOT when it will lead to disaster for the occupied people. This does NOT imply that they SHOULD be applied when there is NO former soveriegn, simply because it is held that they MIGHT benefit the occupied people. In any case I cant see that the establishment of settlements on empty land, settlements that can be given up, is as harmful to the Pal people as the turnover of sovereignty without a transitional law would be to the Iraqi people ( I freely acknowledge that actions such as building walls and highways on land that require the demolition of houses or farms are a HUMANITARIAN problem in a way that establishment of settlements on vacant land is not - I do NOT defend EVERY Israeli action in the territories, and I DO see that the establishment of LEGAL settlements may have led to the ILLEGAL actions of demolition, etc - I dont like the existence of MOST of the settlements, in case you havent gathered that, and I was deeply disappointed in the result of Sundays referendum)