FFS Free Palestine

[Balanbam00]

How many times have I told you BT ,it's disputed territories, Remember their 3 No's: No recognition of Israel ,No peace with Israel,and No negotiations with Israel.

In order to find Israel’s settlements to be a violation of international law, first, Israel must be considered an occupier of foreign territory.

The land on both sides of the river Jordan were recognised as part of the Jewish National Home by the 1920 San Remo Conference.

Then affirmed by article 80 of the United Nations charter in 1945.

When Israel’s leaders declared sovereignty in all territory relinquished by England on May 15, 1948 (including the territory that anti-Israel people call the “West Bank”) it was recognised as the State of Israel by the General Assembly and Security Council by May1949.

Jordan invaded (along with four other Arab states) and conquered this specific territory in 1949, annexed it in 1950, and gave it a new name: “West Bank” (of the river Jordan). Only two countries in the entire world recognised Jordan’s annexation (England and Pakistan) and not a single Arab country recognised this annexation.

Furthermore, article 2 of the UN charter forbids the acquisition of territory through war. Thus, Jordan’s acquisition and annexation of the territory was illegal under international law.

In 1967, Jordan again initiated war against Israel (along with two other Arab states) but Jordan was pushed out of the territory (back to Jordan’s recognised boundaries on the east bank of the Jordan river) by Israel. This re-acquisition of the territory by Israel was legal because article 51 of the U.N. charter permits a nation to defend itself from attack.

If the territory would have been recognised as within the borders of the State of Jordan by either Israel or the international community between 1949 and 1967, then it would have meant Israel’s return to the territory was an occupation, regardless of previous title. But Jordan’s annexation was not recognised by the international community, nor did the Jordan-Israel ceasefire agreement represent acquiescence to new borders by either side:

If the territory would have been recognised as within the borders of the State of Jordan by either Israel or the international community between 1949 and 1967, then it would have meant Israel’s return to the territory was an occupation, regardless of previous title. But Jordan’s annexation was not recognised by the international community, nor did the Jordan-Israel ceasefire agreement represent acquiescence to new borders by either side:

[Balanbam00]

But, for the sake of argument, let us play devil’s advocate and assume Israel had no legal title to the territory in 1967. In that case, would Israel’s settlements be a violation of international law?

The answer is no, here is why:

The Fourth Geneva Convention provides the international law as relates to occupied territory, and is the basis of any legal argument against Israel on the subject of Israeli settlements. Therefore, in order to make the conclusion that Israel’s settlements are illegal under international law, one must be able to apply this convention to Israel’s presence in the area. And then, one must show that Israel is in violation of one of the provisions of the convention.

In order for a territory to be recognized as occupied by the Fourth Geneva Convention, a territory must have changed hands in a conflict in which one country takes control of foreign territory. In Israel’s case, the only other country that controlled the territory in question was Jordan. Yet, Jordan relinquished all claims to the territory in 1988 and recognized the territory as part of Israel in a peace treaty signed in 1994.


Thus, even if Israel’s capture of the territory in 1967 is considered an occupation, the fact that Jordan later relinquished all its claims and then recognized the territory as part of the State of Israel means any such occupation is long over.

[Balanbam00]

But for argument’s sake let us play devil’s advocate and assume Israel is still an occupier to this day, as some might argue, despite the lack of an international conflict. Then, are the settlements illegal?

The answer is still no, here is why:

The convention only applies to states that are a party to the convention itself. Thus, both the occupier and the occupied must be a signatory to the convention in order for it to apply. Since the Arabs of the “West bank” are not a state, they are not a signatory to the Convention, therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to this conflict. This position is shared by Professor Julius Stone, one of the 20th century’s leading authorities on international law, “Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations” discourse 2, pg. 177.

This was also the position of a French Court of Appeals which stated: the Palestinian Authority is not a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore the convention does not apply to them.

[sinkov]

Sinkov the rows I have had at local, ground level about all female short lists are countless.

Meritocracy my arse. Rebecca is good enough to stand on her own two feet and I have no problem with her whatsoever, but she is nowhere near mature enough to bring the Labour Party back from the dead, IMHO.

Looking at what's left after this latest debacle, I seriously wonder who is.

I can't stand the bloke myself, but Starmer looks the best bet to me, but he has that lack of a vagina problem to overcome, the Tories have had two, the LibDems have just lost one, Labour just have to elect a woman to retain any credibility. I suppose Starmer could self-identify as a woman, that's perfectly acceptable these days isn't it, so there you go BT, I've solved Labour's leadership problem for them at a stroke.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Ahmed ( the terrorist ,he is on U tube )

https://youtu.be/GBvfiCdk-jc


Oh sorry to let you know this but he does not fight no more he is already 6 ft under

Of course he is! The Israelis will see them all off.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I can't stand the bloke myself, but Starmer looks the best bet to me, but he has that lack of a vagina problem to overcome, the Tories have had two, the LibDems have just lost one, Labour just have to elect a woman to retain any credibility. I suppose Starmer could self-identify as a woman, that's perfectly acceptable these days isn't it, so there you go BT, I've solved Labour's leadership problem for them at a stroke.

I had a close up conversation with him a couple of years ago at conference, I'm not that certain about your vagina concerns though!

[sinkov]

I had a close up conversation with him a couple of years ago at conference, I'm not that certain about your vagina concerns though!

We'll see BT, but Labour were getting reminders on a daily basis from LibDems and Tories in the Commons about never electing a female leader, and it was cutting through. I don't think Starmer has a chance, the current leader has a willy growing out of his forehead, the next one will have a vagina, mark my words, I know the Left, I've been studying them closely for years.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

But for argument’s sake let us play devil’s advocate and assume Israel is still an occupier to this day, as some might argue, despite the lack of an international conflict. Then, are the settlements illegal?

The answer is still no, here is why:

The convention only applies to states that are a party to the convention itself. Thus, both the occupier and the occupied must be a signatory to the convention in order for it to apply. Since the Arabs of the “West bank” are not a state, they are not a signatory to the Convention, therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to this conflict. This position is shared by Professor Julius Stone, one of the 20th century’s leading authorities on international law, “Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations” discourse 2, pg. 177.

This was also the position of a French Court of Appeals which stated: the Palestinian Authority is not a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore the convention does not apply to them.

Are you actually saying Israel can commit genocide with impunity Balan?

Attachment 14615

[Balanbam00]

Really would you buy a 2nd hand car from this woman??

“The ICC considers accusations of war crimes not against Iran for aiding the massacre of 500,000 in Syria but for the relocation, 4 times approved by independent courts, away from a dangerous highway of 180 illegal squatters by Israel.
“The victims of all real war crimes cry out.”

.....and this is what they do .They come here looking for work or for a place suitable for grazing and pitch some structure.....later claim its ''our land!''


In her statement Thursday, Bensouda addressed two seemingly unrelated topics.First, she said that she has been “following with concern the planned eviction” of residents of Khan al-Ahmar, a Palestinian Bedouin village east of Jerusalem, which has been slated for destruction following a lengthy legal battle in court.

“Evacuation by force now appears imminent, and with it the prospects for further escalation and violence,” the prosecutor’s statement read.

“It bears recalling, as a general matter, that extensive destruction of property without military necessity and population transfers in an occupied territory constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute.”

Much of the international community has urged Israel to refrain from evicting the 180 residents of Khan al-Ahmar, arguing that the forced transfer of populations in occupied territory violates international law.
Again they say ''Occupied territory and violates international law''.

[Balanbam00]

A Palestinian Bedouin village?
Bedouins are nomads they travel all over the area in search of a living, grass for grazing and water,( but today they use a tank which they carry ( buy? ) water). How can they be Palestinians?They are/were, Saudis,Jordanians ,Egyptions, Syrians, etc ? Their Surname can reveal their place of origin!
Al Masri – Egypt,Masrawa – Egypt, Al Tartir – Tartir village, Egypt
Bardawil – Lake and village Bardawil, EgyptTarabin – South-east Sinai (Bedouin), EgyptAbu-Suta / Abu-Seeta – Tarabin tribe, Egypt Sha’alan – Bedouin, Egypt, Fayumi – Al-Fayum village, Egypt,Al Bana – Egypt,Al-Baghdadi – Baghdad, IraqAbbas – Baghdad, IraqZoabi – West Iraq,Al-Faruki – Iraq,Al-Tachriti – Iraq,Zabaide / Zubeidy – Iraq,Husseini / Hussein – Saudi Arabia (Hussein was the 4th Imam) Tamimi – Saudi Arabia,