War on terrorism ineffective

[Fatty]

That's when knowledge and progress were at the core of their ideals MT.  The problem with a fundamentalist shift and their idea of a return to that glory is it's self defeating.  The reason for Arabia's wealth and power was that it was ahead of its time and moving forwards, not backwards.

What they instead move towards in no small irony is the backwards superstition and repressiveness of christian middle ages.

[midnight Target]

True Fatty. They were much more of a merchant society then, dare I say it, even capitalistic in many ways.

[Nashwan]

What you are saying is basically that there was a rape (terrorist attack), but you then continue with telling the rape victim that she has got herself to blame for being raped (Israel brought the attacks on herself because [insert favorite terrorist supporter argument here]).

What I am doing is saying that there never was any rape (murder of innocent Palestinian) in the first place, just consensual sex (if the IDF soldiers were acting within the boundaries of the law, or if it was an accident, then there is no blame to shift).

We're not talking about sex, we're talking about death.

The sex analogy doesn't work in the second case, because the Palestinians didn't consent to anything, and they ended up dead.

I don't believe individual Israelis brought anything on themselves. Israel as a nation is occupying and colonising Palestinian land. To expect the Palestinians to accept that peacefully is stupid. Colonistation involves war. Always has, always will.

I don't believe individual Palestinians brought anything on themselves (the ones in these cases). They were doing nothing wrong, and still got killed.

but you then continue with telling the rape victim that she has got herself to blame for being raped (Israel brought the attacks on herself because [insert favorite terrorist supporter argument here).

That is exactly what you are doing with the Palestinians. They wouldn't have been killed if the IDF wasn't so angry and jumpy.

You don't like shifting blame to the Israeli victims, but you do shift blame to the Palestinian victims.

Israel guarantee its citizens basic human rights.

It doesn't guarantee basic human rights to some groups based on ethnicity. Jews born in the occupied territories are guarnateed rights and citizenship, Arabs born in the ocupied territory are not.

It defines citizenship based on ethnicity.

It is also just about the only country in the world to officialy legalise torture of suspects. It also carries out extra-judicial killings, including in cases where arrest is an easier option.
It also holds foreign hostages to swap with it's own soldiers captured abroad. It also detains citizens and non citizens without trial for periods of 6 months, which can be extended.

The US state department describes Israel's human rights record as "poor"

In short Israel has a pretty good human rights reord for citizens and Jews, an appaling one for Arabs.

Israel uses its military and police to try to protect its citizens against attacks

And to occupy and enforce the colonization of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

Simply not true. The Israelis investigate every shooting of civilians. As for the rest of your theories, they are irrelevant, flawed and biased.

You really need to read up on some facts.

Concerning such confrontations, the GOI takes the position that "Israel is engaged in an armed conflict short of war. This is not a civilian disturbance or a demonstration or a riot. It is characterized by live-fire attacks on a significant scale

Israel's characterization of the conflict, as noted above, is overly broad, for it does not adequately describe the variety of incidents reported since late September 2000. Moreover, by thus defining the conflict, the IDF has suspended its policy of mandating investigations by the Department of Military Police Investigations whenever a Palestinian in the territories dies at the hands of an IDF soldier in an incident not involving terrorism. In the words of the GOI, "Where Israel considers that there is reason to investigate particular incidents, it does so, although, given the circumstances of armed conflict, it does not do so routinely.

From the Mitchell report

During the current Intifada, up until the end of January 2002, 21 cases were investigated by the IDF.  In that time, the IDF killed more than 700 Palestinians, and wounded many thousands more.

So 50 years ago "zionist" women strapped on explosive vests and blew up Palestinian schoolchildren?

No, they didn't use suicide bombings. They did however intentionally target civilians.

The favourite tactic of the Zionist terrorists was to throw bombs from a car, usually into cafes or other crowded areas. They also carried out a terrorist bombing of the British embassy in Rome, and sent letter bombs to people in Britain. As well as murdering a UN envoy trying to broker a peace deal (Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte)

The best you can say about the IDF is it treats Arab lives casually.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The sex analogy doesn't work in the second case, because the Palestinians didn't consent to anything, and they ended up dead.

And again you manage to miss my point by about a mile. Lets try it this way.

You say that Israel brought the terrorist attacks on herself because of [insert various reasons].
I say that is just as bad as blaming the rape victim. You are focusing on the wrong part of the equation.

Rape:
It does not matter whether the girl was drunk or not, it does not matter what she was wearing etc, a no is still a no.

Israel:
It does not matter what Israel did in the past, it does not matter how Israel came to be, it does not matter how IDF soldiers behave in the West Bank etc, a terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack.

You then introduced four dead Palestinians into the discussion. Claiming that I was trying to shift blame from the IDF who killed them, to the pals themselves. But you seem to fail to realize that the situation is completely different from the rape analogy. A terrorist act is always a terrorist act, but the shooting of a civilian (even an innocent one) is not always a crime.

I don't believe individual Israelis brought anything on themselves. Israel as a nation is occupying and colonising Palestinian land. To expect the Palestinians to accept that peacefully is stupid. Colonistation involves war. Always has, always will.

I don't believe individual Palestinians brought anything on themselves (the ones in these cases). They were doing nothing wrong, and still got killed.

We went through this a week ago. If you feel confused over the "occupation and colonizing of Palestinian land"-facts again please go back and read that post again. I'll punt it for you.

The second part of your quote reeks of biased roadkill. But since you say that YOU dont believe that the pals in your example did anything wrong, I guess it's pretty pointless to argue around that. But apparently failing to follow a halt order from an armed soldier is not wrong in your book.

That is exactly what you are doing with the Palestinians. They wouldn't have been killed if the IDF wasn't so angry and jumpy.

And why are the IDF soldiers angry and jumpy?

Again, you approach the problem from the wrong end. The pals started this, and they can end it in a second by just laying off the suicide attacks inside Israel. But no, to you that would be "surrendering".  

You don't like shifting blame to the Israeli victims, but you do shift blame to the Palestinian victims.

That is because it would be wrong to try to shift blame from a Palestinian suicide bomber to a Jewish mother with her infant son in a baby carriage.  

It might not be wrong to try to shift blame from an IDF soldier to an armed Palestinian inside a refugee camp sniping at Israelis.  

But somehow I get the sinking feeling that you disagree...

It doesn't guarantee basic human rights to some groups based on ethnicity. Jews born in the occupied territories are guarnateed rights and citizenship, Arabs born in the ocupied territory are not.

So now you are of the opinion that Israel, as the first country in the world, should start guaranteeing basic human rights to individuals outside its borders who are not Israeli citizens? The idea is absurd.  

It defines citizenship based on ethnicity.

Alot of countries do that.  

It is also just about the only country in the world to officialy legalise torture of suspects. It also carries out extra-judicial killings, including in cases where arrest is an easier option.
It also holds foreign hostages to swap with it's own soldiers captured abroad. It also detains citizens and non citizens without trial for periods of 6 months, which can be extended.

The US state department describes Israel's human rights record as "poor"

Have you read that rule? IMO that rule makes alot of sense. I'm referring to the "ticking-bomb"-law here. Anmyway, lets not forget what kind of people the Israelis are fighting against here. It's not exactly as if they were torturing catholic schoolgirls.

In short Israel has a pretty good human rights reord for citizens and Jews, an appaling one for Arabs.

..who are not Israeli citizens. <- you forgot to add that one to the end of that sentence.  

You really need to read up on some facts.
[SNIP part of Mitchell report]

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "investigate"?

[Naso]

Steve, you portrait of the IDF and Israel as a group of saints martiryzed by the evil Palestinians girls and children, sound someway.... ehm.....

biased?

You are accusing someone of propaganda, by using the arguments of the counterpart propaganda....

No common ground, no understanding.

evil and good is in both part, the real problem is that the evil is gaining power in both parts more and more, and this is scaring.

As a allied of Israel the western countryes often tend to forget the wrong of Israel part and focus on the wrong of Palestinian part, and you seem a perfect example of this situation.

Before you jump accusing me to be biased, i repeat (and read my lips!! ):

They are both wrong!!!!

Wrong by using the means they use, wrong for the objective of mutual annihilation, wrong for the unwillingness to understand or simple listen the reasons of the other, wrong to not have respect for the other.

wrong WRONG WRONG !!!!!

[Hortlund]

Hahahaha

Well, I've never claimed to be the voice of unbiased objectivity now have I?

I did try very hard to be completely objective, unbiased and neutral in that other post though "a crash cource in Mid east history", but in posts like this one I have choosen my side.

And the line between "propaganda" and "fact" is sometimes very thin and illusive. And sometimes the only difference is your own viewpoints.

But you are right, I am not unbiased, I have little sympathy for the Palestinians, and I can give you plenty of reasons why. So I guess we should agree to disagree (I dont want to start a flame war against a fellow Ju88 pilot ), you feel that both sides are wrong, I feel the Palestinians are wrong, and that the Israelis are "right", or at least doing the best they can to do the right thing.

[Naso]

Hey mate, we are discussing, we are enough smart to not start a flamewar....

Well, unless we want to troll a bit

I understand your position, BTW.

Peace

[Nashwan]

You say that Israel brought the terrorist attacks on herself because of [insert various reasons].
I say that is just as bad as blaming the rape victim. You are focusing on the wrong part of the equation.

Agreed.

It does not matter what Israel did in the past, it does not matter how Israel came to be, it does not matter how IDF soldiers behave in the West Bank etc, a terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack.

Agreed.

You then introduced four dead Palestinians into the discussion. Claiming that I was trying to shift blame from the IDF who killed them, to the pals themselves. But you seem to fail to realize that the situation is completely different from the rape analogy. A terrorist act is always a terrorist act, but the shooting of a civilian (even an innocent one) is not always a crime.

If you send your army in to enforce colonization of occupied lands, people will get shot.

The motive is important. If Israeli soldiers were not occupying the West Bank, if Israeli settlements did not have free fire zones around them, people would not get shot.

We went through this a week ago. If you feel confused over the "occupation and colonizing of Palestinian land"-facts again please go back and read that post again. I'll punt it for you.

Why are you trying to shift to technical details again?

The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. Even Israel says so, and no country recognizes them as part of Israel. They have indigenous inhabitants, the vast majority of whom are Palestinians. Most of the land is in the private ownership of Palestinians, hence Palestinian land.

Practically every country in the world recognizes that Israel is occupying those lands, even the US. Not Steve Hortlund, apparently.

The second part of your quote reeks of biased roadkill. But since you say that YOU dont believe that the pals in your example did anything wrong, I guess it's pretty pointless to argue around that. But apparently failing to follow a halt order from an armed soldier is not wrong in your book.

A deaf man not being able to hear deserves to be shot in your book?

To get back to your rape analogy, it's like saying a mute woman can't be raped because she can't say no.

None of these people were doing anything wrong. A deaf man was walking down the street. A woman was a passenger in a car, a man was driving his car, a child was sitting at home. But of course, they deserved it, didnt they?

And why are the IDF soldiers angry and jumpy?

Perhaps because they are an occupying army enforcing military law on 3 million people, and keeping those people penned up to facilitate the colonisation of their land.

Again, you approach the problem from the wrong end. The pals started this, and they can end it in a second by just laying off the suicide attacks inside Israel. But no, to you that would be "surrendering".

Both sides started it, not the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are occupied. Of course they can end this by surrendering. It won't end the occupation, or the illegal siezure of their lands, or their water rationing, or their being subject to Israeli military law.

Israel could end it just as easily by stopping trying to colonize the West Bank and Gaza. Then their troops wouldn't have to roam around the occupied land shooting at people, and deaf people wouldn't have to worry about being shot.

That is because it would be wrong to try to shift blame from a Palestinian suicide bomber to a Jewish mother with her infant son in a baby carriage.

It might not be wrong to try to shift blame from an IDF soldier to an armed Palestinian inside a refugee camp sniping at Israelis.

But somehow I get the sinking feeling that you disagree...

I'm not talking about the IDF shooting a man sniping at Israelis. I'm talking about them shooting innocent, unarmed people. The cases above, for example. Or the case from the 5th May, when a trank on an Israeli tank broke, and the soldiers shot dead a 30 year old woman, her 5 year old son, and her 3 year old son. The soldiers claimed the tank track breaking sounded like they were under attack, and open-fire regulations state that if they are under attack, they are to open fire on all possible hiding points around them, like houses, bushes etc.

Was the 3 year old guilty of anything? The five year old? The 30 year old picking grape leaves with her kids?

So now you are of the opinion that Israel, as the first country in the world, should start guaranteeing basic human rights to individuals outside its borders who are not Israeli citizens? The idea is absurd.

Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees basic rights to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is breaking the convention in several areas.

It's not just that Israel has a duty to ensure the rights of the Palestinians, as they are under their control, it's that Israel itself is actively violating those rights.

Have you read that rule? IMO that rule makes alot of sense. I'm referring to the "ticking-bomb"-law here.

You believe in torturing supects to gain information and confessions?

I made a mistake, Israel officialy banned torture in 1999, although it still goes on.

However, "ticking bomb" is a joke phrase. Torture was applied to about 85% of all Palestinian detainees to extract confessions.

Anmyway, lets not forget what kind of people the Israelis are fighting against here. It's not exactly as if they were torturing catholic schoolgirls.

Torture was, and still is, applied to suspects. You know, people brought in for questioning who may or may not be guilty of a crime. Crimes they were accused of ranged from planting bombs to throwing stones to spraying politcal slogans on walls.

..who are not Israeli citizens.

That's alright then. IF someone isn't a citizen, you can steal their land, torture them, deprive them of food and water, keep them under curfew, deny them political rights, etc.

Hey, wait a minute, the Palestinians are blowing up Israelis, who aren't their fellow citizens. That's alright too, is it?

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "investigate"?

Mine is the same as the IDF's, and the US state department. What's yours?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
If you send your army in to enforce colonization of occupied lands, people will get shot.

The motive is important. If Israeli soldiers were not occupying the West Bank, if Israeli settlements did not have free fire zones around them, people would not get shot.

True, but it is just as true that no people would get shot if the Palestinians decided not to venture into the free-fire zones, or if they decided to just get over themselves and get on with their lifes instead of having their own little intifada...

Why are you trying to shift to technical details again?

The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. Even Israel says so, and no country recognizes them as part of Israel. They have indigenous inhabitants, the vast majority of whom are Palestinians. Most of the land is in the private ownership of Palestinians, hence Palestinian land.

Practically every country in the world recognizes that Israel is occupying those lands, even the US. Not Steve Hortlund, apparently.

Well, the reason I'm back to the technical details again is because you keep using words like "occupation" and "colonization". And please… "most of the land is in the private ownership of Palestinians, hence Palestinian land." You know better than that. The notion is just as absurd as if someone claimed that some Skyscraper was Japanese land just because some Japanese guy owns the building. It's a bit more complicated than that.

How's this, I'll lay off the technical legal aspects of the conflict if you stop trying to claim that Israel is colonizing the west bank, or that it is Palestinian land or stuff like that. If you want to we can continue the legal/historical debate in the other thread. Your call.

A deaf man not being able to hear deserves to be shot in your book?

No, you must have misunderstood. I never said he deserved to be shot.

To get back to your rape analogy, it's like saying a mute woman can't be raped because she can't say no.

No, again you should try to steer clear of the legal aspects of just about anything it would seem. A person can be raped without having said no. And the analogy is so poor it should be taken out back and shot.

None of these people were doing anything wrong. A deaf man was walking down the street. A woman was a passenger in a car, a man was driving his car, a child was sitting at home. But of course, they deserved it, didnt they?

Again, without knowing the details of all the occasions you mentioned, let me ask again. How on earth do you reach the conclusion that failing to stop when an armed soldier orders you to stop "halt or I'll shoot" is not "doing anything wrong"?

Perhaps because they are an occupying army enforcing military law on 3 million people, and keeping those people penned up to facilitate the colonisation of their land.

If you keep post crap like this I will keep posting long legal arguments as to why the territory is not occupied in the sense you mean, nor is it being wrongfully colonized. Cant you just lay off the propaganda phrasings?

Both sides started it, not the Palestinians.

You need to brush up on your history. I recommend you read my thread "A crash course in mid east history". As for the most recent conflict, who started the intifada?

The Palestinians are occupied. Of course they can end this by surrendering. It won't end the occupation, or the illegal siezure of their lands, or their water rationing, or their being subject to Israeli military law.

AGAIN read my thread "A crash course in mid east history".

Israel could end it just as easily by stopping trying to colonize the West Bank and Gaza. Then their troops wouldn't have to roam around the occupied land shooting at people, and deaf people wouldn't have to worry about being shot.

Well, here you are wrong. The conflict would not just end if the Israelis gave up all claims on the West Bank. One of the Palestinian non-negotiable demands (at least it was when the Barak offfer was turned down) is that all Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return, and reclaim their lost property. That would mean that approx 3 000 000 Palestinian arabs would be injected into Israel. Acceptable? Right... And we all know what the Palestinian reaction is when the Israelis say no to a demand of theirs... more suicide bombers. Simple fact of the matter is that Israel is fighting for her very survival here. Not just over some piece of land.

I'm not talking about the IDF shooting a man sniping at Israelis. I'm talking about them shooting innocent, unarmed people. The cases above, for example. Or the case from the 5th May, when a trank on an Israeli tank broke, and the soldiers shot dead a 30 year old woman, her 5 year old son, and her 3 year old son. The soldiers claimed the tank track breaking sounded like they were under attack, and open-fire regulations state that if they are under attack, they are to open fire on all possible hiding points around them, like houses, bushes etc.

Was the 3 year old guilty of anything? The five year old? The 30 year old picking grape leaves with her kids?

We have already talked about this incident remember? But to answer your question, no, the 3 yr old was not guilty of anything, nor the 5 yr old, nor their mother. It was a tragic accident. Let me ask you the same question I asked you the last time you brought this up again. Do you think the IDF tank crew would have opened fire if they knew that the only people in that field were two kids and a mother? Here you will find the difference between the IDF and the Pals. The Pals deliberately aim their attacks on women and children. The IDF doesnt.

Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees basic rights to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is breaking the convention in several areas.

It's not just that Israel has a duty to ensure the rights of the Palestinians, as they are under their control, it's that Israel itself is actively violating those rights.

What was the name of that convention now again? If you insist on quoting legal documents at least quote them right. And AGAIN, you are in way over your head when you try to enter the realm of legal reasoning. So the Israelis have signed the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention. That does not automatically mean that it is applying to the situation on the West Bank. The international red cross might think it does, I know the Israelis does not. The particular protocol we are talking about is only applicable in a war. (If you dont believe me, check the name of the protocol :" Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949." Now, perhaps you want to get into another legal discussion here (since you have been doing oh, so well in those so far), if so just let me know. Before that though, please give me a definition of "war" (hint, it requires two nations) or "civil war" (is the convention applicable in a civil war?…hmmm)

You believe in torturing supects to gain information and confessions?

In some circumstances, yes.

That's alright then. IF someone isn't a citizen, you can steal their land, torture them, deprive them of food and water, keep them under curfew, deny them political rights, etc.

Not really, but you dont have to defend their human rights either. As for the rest, read a book. Steal their land has not happened, deprived them of food and water has not happened either, the rest are issues of Israeli law.
rule of thumb: Break the law = face the consequences.

[Nashwan]

And the analogy is so poor it should be taken out back and shot

Yes, I agree your rape analogy is wearing thin. Comparing someone getting hot to consensual sex was about the most ridiculous analogy I've ever seen.

How on earth do you reach the conclusion that failing to stop when an armed soldier orders you to stop "halt or I'll shoot" is not "doing anything wrong"?

Because he didn't hear the order to stop. If you don't obey an order you don't hear, how is that wrong?

If you keep post crap like this I will keep posting long legal arguments as to why the territory is not occupied in the sense you mean, nor is it being wrongfully colonized.

Not being wrongfully colonized? Not occupied?

The US goernment seems to think so:

Question: Mr. Secretary, on the Middle East. Your speech in Louisville has been welcomed by Arab leaders who are very sensitive to the language that you used. You talked about Palestine. You referred to Israeli settlement of the West Bank as occupation. Are they right to notice a deliberate change of tone here?

Secretary Powell: I think they, both sides, Israelis and Arabs and Palestinians, have responded favorably to the speech, I'm pleased to say. What we tried to do in that speech is to lay down US positions that have existed over time, and lay them down in one comprehensive way and say to both parties, this is what you have to do to move this process along, and these are the realities.

There is nothing new with respect to the United States identifying the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories. They are occupied territories under UN resolutions. So there is nothing -- absolutely nothing new in that language, although people might not like to hear it come out of the mouth of the Secretary of State.

And with respect to settlement activity, that also has been a US position, and it is also a major feature of the Mitchell Plan, to go forward. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have accepted a cessation of settlement activity as part of the Mitchell Plan.

From the US state department web site.

The UN seems to think so, the Eu, the member states of the Eu, etc.

Strangely, even the largest settlement development organization seems to think so. Go to the Amana.co.il website, where they will tell you about thei efforts in "colonizing" (their word) Judea and Samaria. They will boast about the number of houses they build, and their efforts to "turn the people toward colonization"

Well, here you are wrong. The conflict would not just end if the Israelis gave up all claims on the West Bank. One of the Palestinian non-negotiable demands (at least it was when the Barak offfer was turned down) is that all Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return, and reclaim their lost property. That would mean that approx 3 000 000 Palestinian arabs would be injected into Israel. Acceptable? Right... And we all know what the Palestinian reaction is when the Israelis say no to a demand of theirs... more suicide bombers

Non-negotiable? Negotiaton was underway, with the Palestinians complaining that Israel wouldn't declare an opening position on how many refugees it was willing to take back. Both sides agreed that alternatives, such as roperty within a Palestinian state, could be offered. The implication is, give the refugees some money, and give them the Israeli settlements for housing.

We have already talked about this incident remember? But to answer your question, no, the 3 yr old was not guilty of anything, nor the 5 yr old, nor their mother. It was a tragic accident. Let me ask you the same question I asked you the last time you brought this up again. Do you think the IDF tank crew would have opened fire if they knew that the only people in that field were two kids and a mother? Here you will find the difference between the IDF and the Pals. The Pals deliberately aim their attacks on women and children. The IDF doesnt.

THe best that can be said of the IDF is that they are indifferent to the fate of Palestinians. In some cases they have deliberately shot women and childen who were posing no threat.

What was the name of that convention now again? If you insist on quoting legal documents at least quote them right. And AGAIN, you are in way over your head when you try to enter the realm of legal reasoning. So the Israelis have signed the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention. That does not automatically mean that it is applying to the situation on the West Bank. The international red cross might think it does, I know the Israelis does not.

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
UN resolution 465

The whole world calls it the Fourth Geneva convention. Should they change or should you?

As you say, the Red Cross also thinks the 4th Geneva Convention applies to the occupied territories, as does the US government, the UN, the EU etc.

Even Israel doesn't contend that the convention doesn't apply:

The principle of international humanitarian law which prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force is not relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt to present Israeli settlements as a violation of this principle is clearly untenable.
From the Israeli foreign ministy web site.

They are not claiming the convention doesn't apply, just one part of the convention. The logic behind it is twisted, to say the least.
The Czechs, Poles and Hungarians are no more seperate races than the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are certainly being displaced by Israeli colonization.

The particular protocol we are talking about is only applicable in a war. (If you dont believe me, check the name of the protocol :" Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949."

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143.
Article 6

As you can see, article 49, the one in question, applies even after the end of the war. Perhaps you should read the whole convention rather than basing your arguments on the title?

Now, perhaps you want to get into another legal discussion here (since you have been doing oh, so well in those so far

See above

Before that though, please give me a definition of "war" (hint, it requires two nations) or "civil war" (is the convention applicable in a civil war?…hmmm)

I really think you should read the convention.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Article 2

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Article 4

Are the Palestinians Israeli nationals? No
Do they find themselves in the hands of a Party or Occupying power? Yes

Again, don't take my word for it. The UN, the US, the ICRC, the EU etc all say the convention does apply. Even Israel isn't denying it applies.

Not really, but you dont have to defend their human rights either. As for the rest, read a book. Steal their land has not happened, deprived them of food and water has not happened either, the rest are issues of Israeli law.

Where do you think the land for the settlements, their access roads, free fire zones, agricultural land etc has come from?

It has been requisitioned from Palestinians who owned it. Under international law, which Israel has signed up to, that's illegal. Taking something that doesn't belong to you, and is prohibitted by law, is called stealing.

Many Palestinians are now in urgent need of food aid, because Israeli blockades have prevented food from entering towns, so yes they are being deprived of food. They are also subject to week long curfews, which again denies them access to food.

Water is rationed, and the IDF regularly cuts off supplies. During operation defensive shiled, they destroyed pumping stations and shot holes in almost all the roof top water tanks in the towns they occupied.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Because he didn't hear the order to stop. If you don't obey an order you don't hear, how is that wrong?

Yet again you seem eager to prove your own ignorance. It is wrong in the same way as it is wrong to break the law, even if you were unaware of the fact that you were breaking the law. You should try it sometime, perhaps the judge can explain it better than me. Try this: break the speed limit somewhere, then claim that you had no idea the speed limit was so low, see how far that will get you.

Not being wrongfully colonized? Not occupied?
The US goernment seems to think so:

LOL yeah, so what? Mr Powell seems to have been busy building his coalition against the Al Quaida

There is nothing new with respect to the United States identifying the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories. They are occupied territories under UN resolutions.

<-notice this phrasing. Now go read a book on international law, and try to learn the difference between international law and a UN resolution. And please read a book this time, dont just buzz around the internet to look for answers (but we have covered that before).

I have tried to explain this to you before (to no avail apparently) but heck, lets try it again. International law is one of the most complicated areas of law there is. The line between politics and international law is razor thin at best. Sometimes it is impossible to tell where it is. As an example, you might want to read the Nicaragua vs USA case at the international court of justice (ICJ Rep. 1984). In that case the US was in clear violation of international law (it is illegal to mine harbors and arm/train/fund insurgents in another country), but still Nicaragua lost that case (complicated again, among other things it has to do with questions of jurisdiction for the court).

You can take any international dispute you want, and I can guarantee you that you will be able to find support for both sides both in international law and in various UN resolutions. It is too complicated to just find some quote on some website and use that quote for whatever purpose. You have to understand the hierarchy of legal sources.

There are numerous UN resolutions regarding Israel and the West Bank. The important ones (Security counsel resolutions are generally more important than General assembly resolutions) all state that (and please pay attention now) Israel is not entitled to annex any of the territory it overran in 1967. Is Israel annexing anything? No.

There are also UN resolutions (from the General assembly) which states that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination. Two things are important to remember here.
1) These are General assembly resolutions (normally just as binding as a piece of toilet paper) and
2) The do not specify what territory the Pals have the right to self-determination in (that means the Israelis can say, ok, you guys get the Gaza strip).

COMPLICATED huh?

Strangely, even the largest settlement development organization seems to think so. Go to the Amana.co.il website, where they will tell you about thei efforts in "colonizing" (their word) Judea and Samaria. They will boast about the number of houses they build, and their efforts to "turn the people toward colonization"

Yeah, great case for the colonization.. "look, here is a website where some settlers say that they are colonizing the west bank. It must be a legal fact then".

Non-negotiable? Negotiaton was underway, with the Palestinians complaining that Israel wouldn't declare an opening position on how many refugees it was willing to take back. Both sides agreed that alternatives, such as roperty within a Palestinian state, could be offered. The implication is, give the refugees some money, and give them the Israeli settlements for housing.

Negotiation was underway…sure…did it get anywhere? Its just as easy negiotiating with a wall. Accept the simple fact that when it comes to water rights, refugees, settlers and Jerusalem the Israelis and the Pals will never reach any agreement. The rest is ludicrous "Israel should give the refugees money AND the Israeli settlements to live in" ..yeah, right. I'm sure the settlers wont have any problem with that.  

In some cases they have deliberately shot women and childen who were posing no threat.

Sources?

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
UN resolution 465 [SNIP various ramblings]

See above regarding the complexity of international law, and your attempts at mastering it.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143.
Article 6

As you can see, article 49, the one in question, applies even after the end of the war. Perhaps you should read the whole convention rather than basing your arguments on the title?

Hmm..did we just fall back into the "Is Israel occupying the West Bank"-question again?  
As I said, these questions are more complicated than you might want to admit.

I really think you should read the convention.

Trust me, I have.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Article 2

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Article 4

Are the Palestinians Israeli nationals? No
Do they find themselves in the hands of a Party or Occupying power? Yes

Again, don't take my word for it. The UN, the US, the ICRC, the EU etc all say the convention does apply. Even Israel isn't denying it applies.

AGAIN, please give this line of reasoning up. Accept your limitations. This is just about as diddlying pointless as if I would start arguing over complex physical theories after browsing some websites and snatching a quote here and there. GIVE IT UP.

Read article 3 (the one you left out), and then shut up. (Hint Palestine is not a nation, there is no war, is there an armed conflict? Probably not because the Pals dont have enough features of a state and the convention was never meant to be used when battling terrorist organizations. Now please GIVE UP.

It has been requisitioned from Palestinians who owned it. Under international law, which Israel has signed up to, that's illegal. Taking something that doesn't belong to you, and is prohibitted by law, is called stealing.

*sigh*
Once again. If Israel has jurisdicition over a territory, then Israeli law applies. If Israeli law applies, then Israeli law decides what is legal/illegal.    

Many Palestinians are now in urgent need of food aid, because Israeli blockades have prevented food from entering towns, so yes they are being deprived of food. They are also subject to week long curfews, which again denies them access to food.

Oh no..the humanity. Perhaps they should refrain from sending suicide bombers to blow up Israeli children then.

Water is rationed, and the IDF regularly cuts off supplies. During operation defensive shiled, they destroyed pumping stations and shot holes in almost all the roof top water tanks in the towns they occupied.

See above.

[Nashwan]

Yet again you seem eager to prove your own ignorance. It is wrong in the same way as it is wrong to break the law, even if you were unaware of the fact that you were breaking the law. You should try it sometime, perhaps the judge can explain it better than me. Try this: break the speed limit somewhere, then claim that you had no idea the speed limit was so low, see how far that will get you.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of the crime is.

Claiming you didn't know you had to stop when shouted at by a soldier is not a defence, not being able to hear the soldier shouting at you is. Are you really a judge?

You can take any international dispute you want, and I can guarantee you that you will be able to find support for both sides both in international law and in various UN resolutions. It is too complicated to just find some quote on some website and use that quote for whatever purpose. You have to understand the hierarchy of legal sources.

Ok, tell me what UN resolutions and what international laws support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

There are numerous UN resolutions regarding Israel and the West Bank. The important ones (Security counsel resolutions are generally more important than General assembly resolutions) all state that (and please pay attention now) Israel is not entitled to annex any of the territory it overran in 1967. Is Israel annexing anything? No.

Security council resolutions are binding upon member states, general assembly ones are not.

1.Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict.
UN security council resolution 242, reaffirmed in 338

Again, you need to read up on the history. Israel has annexed parts of Jerusalem and the Golan heights.

COMPLICATED huh?

Yes, certainly. Some bits aren't quite so complicated, however:

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory
by  war  and  the  need to work for a just and lasting peace in
which every state in the area can live in security.
242

(West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel)


2.Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem
242

1.Affirming   once  more  that  the  fourth  Geneva  convention
relative  to  the protection of civilian persons in time of war
of  12  August  1949  is  applicable  to  the  Arab territories
occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem
465

2.Determines  that  all  measures taken by Israel to change the
physical   character,  demographic  composition,  institutional
structure   of   status  of  the  Palestinian  and  other  Arab
territories  occupied  since  1967, including Jerusalem, or any
part  thereof,  have no legal validity and that Israel's policy
and  practices  of  setting  parts  of  its  population and new
Immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation
of  the  fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of
civilian  persons  in time of war and also constitute a serious
obstruction  to  achieving  a  comprehensive,  just and lasting
peace in the Middle East.
465

3.Strongly  deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel
in  pursuing  those  policies  and practices and calls upon the
government  and  people of Israel to rescind those measures, to
dismantle  the existing settlements and in particular to cease,
on   an  urgent  basis,  the  establishment,  construction  and
planning  of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since
1967, including Jerusalem.
465

Theres loads more, but the message is clear.

Yeah, great case for the colonization.. "look, here is a website where some settlers say that they are colonizing the west bank. It must be a legal fact then".

Amana are not "some settlers". Amana is funded by the Israeli government and has access to government owned land that has been siezed from Palestinians.

Negotiation was underway…sure…did it get anywhere? Its just as easy negiotiating with a wall. Accept the simple fact that when it comes to water rights, refugees, settlers and Jerusalem the Israelis and the Pals will never reach any agreement. The rest is ludicrous "Israel should give the refugees money AND the Israeli settlements to live in" ..yeah, right. I'm sure the settlers wont have any problem with that.

I'm sure the settlers will have a problem with that. Perhaps the IDF can patrol their streets to make sure they obey the law, and have one or two of their "accidents".

It's strange that you think it reasonable for 3 million Palestinians to live under military occupation to benifit a few hundred thousand colonists.

The alternative to not reaching an agreement is continued war. Thankfully, most Israelis have become fed up of that, and support for a pull out from the occupied territories is now well over 50%.

Sources?

Try BTselem.

Hmm..did we just fall back into the "Is Israel occupying the West Bank"-question again?
As I said, these questions are more complicated than you might want to admit.

As I said, given a choice between trusting the legal opinion of the UN, US, Eu, UK, ICRC, etc, I think I'll choose them over you. No offense.

Read article 3 (the one you left out), and then shut up. (Hint Palestine is not a nation, there is no war, is there an armed conflict? Probably not because the Pals dont have enough features of a state and the convention was never meant to be used when battling terrorist organizations. Now please GIVE UP.

Ok, Steve Hortlund is right, the UN, UK, EU, US  etc etc etc are all wrong.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
article 3

"international character". It doesn't say not between two countries. Given that you have 1 country, Israel, and it is operating in territory it doesn't own, against people who are not it's citizens, that gives it "international character"

Again, everybody else seems to accept these facts, only you deny them.

Now, I could be the stupidest person in the world, but if I'm arguing the UK, EU, UN, US, ICRC etc are right, and Steve Hortlund from Sweden is wrong, I know which side I'd put my money on.

Remember how you said international law was complex, and you can find different sources arguing different things? Find one credible source that says the fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the West Bank and Gaza. I've provided many that say it does, from people like Koffi Anan, Colin Powell, the UN security council, the ICRC etc. You have proided the opinion of Steve Hortlund.

Once again. If Israel has jurisdicition over a territory, then Israeli law applies. If Israeli law applies, then Israeli law decides what is legal/illegal.

The highest level of law decides what is legal/illegal. For example, US federal law says some things are crimes, doesn't matter what state law says.

Israel has signed up to various international treaties, and agreed to be bound by those treaties. It agreed to be bound by the fourth geneva convention.

Steve, before you start shouting at me to give up again, you might question the fact that I have posted sources, of respected countries and organisations to support my point of view. Not my opinion, theirs. You have merely stated your opinions, and become increasingly patronising to anyone who won't accept them.

Oh no..the humanity. Perhaps they should refrain from sending suicide bombers to blow up Israeli children then.

Perhaps Israel should refrain from sending the IDF to drive them off their land.

In case you hadn't noticed, the two sides are at war over a piece of land. Expecting one side in a war not to fight back is a bit silly.

What the last couple of months have shown is that Israel can't really win that war. Defensive shield was supposed to bring several month respite, instead 27 Israelis have been murdered.

On top of that, the operation cost over 30 Israeli soldiers lives. Now the Israeli defence minister is wrning of a "wave" of suicide attacks.

All you bizarre legal theories don't really matter, and don't affect the facts, that 3 million Palestinians won't be displaced without a fight, and the more that is done to displace them, the more they will fight back.

In the end, the only thing that's going to work is a negotiated settlement, which will see Israel abandoning the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians getting their own state. It's eally just a question of how many more people die before that happens.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Ok, tell me what UN resolutions and what international laws support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

I thought I had covered the international law aspect of it all? Go back and re-read the thread "a crash course in mid east history" you seriously cannot expect me to post all that again? Well, I guess I could just copy and paste it to this thread, but that sounds silly. As for the UN. The absence of binding UN resolutions ordering the Israelis to leave the West Bank might be an indication. OR the fact that the UN charter expressly forbids the UN from meddling with the internal affairs of any member state.  

Amana are not "some settlers". Amana is funded by the Israeli government and has access to government owned land that has been siezed from Palestinians.

So what? That still doesnt change the fact that the legal aspect of this is a bit more complicated than taking random quotes from their website as any sort of evidence.

I'm sure the settlers will have a problem with that. Perhaps the IDF can patrol their streets to make sure they obey the law, and have one or two of their "accidents".

Nah, I dont think so. Any Israeli prime minister ordering the IDF to move in on the settlers has practically committed political suicide. It aint gonna happen.  

It's strange that you think it reasonable for 3 million Palestinians to live under military occupation to benifit a few hundred thousand colonists.

Again, you fail to see the whole picture. Israel is not in the West Bank "just because" or because the government wants to aid the settlers struggle. Israel must have the west bank for its security. Same goes for the Golan heights. The security situation becomes untenable if the IDF would just pack up and leave. It aint gonna happen. Accept this fact and get on with your life.

The alternative to not reaching an agreement is continued war. Thankfully, most Israelis have become fed up of that, and support for a pull out from the occupied territories is now well over 50%.

That number seems to fluctuate alot. Anyway, as you might or might not know (regarding your previous track record when arguing the legal aspects of this conflict) what matters is who is elected. Not what the most current opinion polls say. If the Israelis want out of the West Bank, then I'm sure they'll vote for some candidate with that agenda in the next election.

As for the continued war. Israel is the only party with any reasonable chance of winning that war. I suspect they will soon begin with the asymmetrical response-tactics they used against the Egyptians after the six days war...  

Try BTselem.

Try to post a link or a quote here instead.

As I said, given a choice between trusting the legal opinion of the UN, US, Eu, UK, ICRC, etc, I think I'll choose them over you. No offense.

None taken. You have proved time and time again that you dont fully grasp the legal aspect of this, why should I be offended over what you believe when you are so clearly wrong? The fun thing is that you really believe that the "legal opinion of the UN, US, EU" somehow backs your side of this argument. But as I said, the line between law and politics can be very hard to spot when you're dealing with international law.

Ok, Steve Hortlund is right, the UN, UK, EU, US etc etc etc are all wrong.

Nah, actually I think its more like "Nashwan is wrong because he is misunderstanding or misinterpreting what he reads on various websites"

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
article 3

Yes, so do you note that it means that the convention does not apply in those cases? Only the minimum provisions?

"international character". It doesn't say not between two countries. Given that you have 1 country, Israel, and it is operating in territory it doesn't own, against people who are not it's citizens, that gives it "international character"

Again, give up your pathetic attempts at legal reasoning.

Again, everybody else seems to accept these facts, only you deny them.

OR you are misinterpreting what others say on their websites, OR you read the websites of organizations that have an interest in interpreting the convention in one way or the other.

Now, I could be the stupidest person in the world,

Nah, I think Masherbrum is holding that spot right now. Hmm..maybe thats not fair, I saw some pretty stupid persons on that Youth of Islam board too…I guess I'd have to pick one there.

but if I'm arguing the UK, EU, UN, US, ICRC etc are right, and Steve Hortlund from Sweden is wrong, I know which side I'd put my money on.

Well, the problem is that that's not what you are arguing. You are arguing around your own impression or interpretation of what they are saying. You may think that you are right and that you have support for your version in various quotes, but you dont. Because the law is more complicated than that, especially international law. Keep your money instead, do something useful with them.

Remember how you said international law was complex, and you can find different sources arguing different things? Find one credible source that says the fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the West Bank and Gaza. I've provided many that say it does, from people like Koffi Anan, Colin Powell, the UN security council, the ICRC etc. You have proided the opinion of Steve Hortlund.

Have you? Or is that what you think that you have?  

The highest level of law decides what is legal/illegal. For example, US federal law says some things are crimes, doesn't matter what state law says.

Exactly, and you do not know what this hierarchy is or how it works. You simply dont know which law is the highest one.

Steve, before you start shouting at me to give up again, you might question the fact that I have posted sources, of respected countries and organisations to support my point of view. Not my opinion, theirs. You have merely stated your opinions, and become increasingly patronising to anyone who won't accept them.

Nashwan, I'm not trying to be mean or patronizing or anything. I have tried to say that these things are really complex. I know people who have spend half their life pondering over these questions and still they cant say exactly what the law is in some cases. Most of these rules are open to interpretation, and I can understand how you feel that you have support by interpreting the conventions in one way or the other. But it is more complicated than that. You cant just open a lawbook and look at paragraph 1 where it says "It is forbidden to destroy property" and go "AHA, I'm right, here is the proof!", and then fail to keep reading down to paragraph 2 where it says "except in these circumstances …". This is pretty much exactly what you are doing right now with this Geneva convention discussion. You just cant grab some quotes from some website and paste it here as some kind of proof. You have to realize that it is more complicated than that. Let me try to give you an example. I understand that you feel that you are right, and I understand that you feel that you have found evidence on various websites that support your views. Now can you please acknowledge the fact that international law just might be more complicated than that. That sometimes it does not matter what a charter says because the charter might not be applicable, or that even if a charter by its wordings is applicable that doesnt mean that it is applicable. That is because the line between politics and international law is sometimes impossible to spot. Take your fourth Geneva convention and ask yourself how it has been applied in Afghanistan. Now, using your logic, and the logic presented on the websites you have quoted, that convention should really be applicable there too right? But yet somehow it isnt. That is because these things are more complicated than you think.

Now I have asked you time and time again to give up this legal analysis, but you just keep on with it. Cant you please acknowledge the fact that this is not your area of expertise? I mean, I dont go around telling people how to solve complicated mathematical problems or how to do some chemical analysis of some substance do I?

When you retreat to arguments like "your bizarre legal theories doesnt really matter" you are in fact saying that "hey, I havent got a clue here, maybe you are right about what the law says, but I dont care and it doesnt matter because the Pals are right and the Israelis are wrong". Fine, you can hold that opinion, but you have to realize that you have in fact accepted the fact that the Israelis have the law on their side in this conflict, and you are reduced to arguing that the Pals have the moral right or whatever.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of the crime is.

Claiming you didn't know you had to stop when shouted at by a soldier is not a defence, not being able to hear the soldier shouting at you is.

Failing to stop when a soldier orders you to is (most probably) a violation of Israeli law. If you are in violation of Israeli law, then the Israeli law enforcement has the right to use whatever means they deem are necessary and within the boundaries of the law. Thus, the soldiers shooting the deaf guy did not do anything wrong. This was the conclusion I wanted to reach with my example. The deaf guy was in violation of the law, but maybe he did not have intent. That is irrelevant right now however. A court might not have been able to convict him for any crime (since they would have a he** of a time proving any intent), but he was still in violation of the law, and thus the soldiers had the right to shoot.

Perhaps Israel should refrain from sending the IDF to drive them off their land.

In case you hadn't noticed, the two sides are at war over a piece of land. Expecting one side in a war not to fight back is a bit silly.

They are not at war. Israel is fighting terrorism. A war requires two nations. If the pals want to have a civil war, Im sure the IDF would be all too happy to crush the PLO. How long would that take? 2-3 days? But the Pals realize that they'll never win a war against Israel, so instead they use terror.

What the last couple of months have shown is that Israel can't really win that war. Defensive shield was supposed to bring several month respite, instead 27 Israelis have been murdered.

On top of that, the operation cost over 30 Israeli soldiers lives. Now the Israeli defence minister is wrning of a "wave" of suicide attacks.

You really shouldnt worry about the Israelis…they'll survive. Take a look at the frequency of suicide bombers before and after the offensive. Take a look at just exactly who the Israelis managed to capture or kill in that offensive. The Pal terrorist organizations wont survive another offensive like that.  

All you bizarre legal theories don't really matter, and don't affect the facts, that 3 million Palestinians won't be displaced without a fight, and the more that is done to displace them, the more they will fight back.

Fine, so stop arguing over the legal aspects. The highlighted part speaks volumes about your knowledge in legal analysis. Its ok, and it was to be expected. Now just give that line of reasoning up. We can talk morals if you want, since that is pretty much all you have left after you have given up the "bizarre legal theories". I TOLD you it was complicated, and no fun either since the Israelis have the law on their side in this conflict.

In the end, the only thing that's going to work is a negotiated settlement, which will see Israel abandoning the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians getting their own state. It's eally just a question of how many more people die before that happens.

I disagree. There are other options.

[Nashwan]

OR you are misinterpreting what others say on their websites, OR you read the websites of organizations that have an interest in interpreting the convention in one way or the other.

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
UN resolution 465. Adopted unanimously (ie, including the US)

It doesn't require much interpretation to understand what they are saying.

Obiously international law is subject to politics, just as national law is in some countries. However, even America, which isn't exactly anti-Israeli, unequivicolay takes that position.

As guardian of the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC reminds all those involved in the current violence that the Fourth Geneva Convention remains fully applicable in and relevant to the Palestinian Occupied and Autonomous territories.

Again un-ambiguous.

The UK is firm in its view that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem

From the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth government webisite.

These are not misinterpretations on my part, they are clear declarations of the views of the respective organisations. Wether or not they are motivated by politics hardly matters, but I doubt most of them are.

Israel is the only party with any reasonable chance of winning that war. I suspect they will soon begin with the asymmetrical response-tactics they used against the Egyptians after the six days war...

Only problem with that is the asymetrical response has to be delivered against civilians. That's not acceptable to the international community, or even to large parts of Israeli society.

Again, give up your pathetic attempts at legal reasoning.

Are you incapable of have a debate without personal insults?

A court might not have been able to convict him for any crime (since they would have a he** of a time proving any intent), but he was still in violation of the law, and thus the soldiers had the right to shoot.

The open fire regulations the IDF operate under say they cannot fire unless they are under attack(or threat) or a member of the public is under attack.

Not that they can shoot people who disobey them.

But the Pals realize that they'll never win a war against Israel, so instead they use terror.

Like almost every defeated and occupied country before them. Like the Zionists too, in fact.

You really shouldnt worry about the Israelis…they'll survive. Take a look at the frequency of suicide bombers before and after the offensive. Take a look at just exactly who the Israelis managed to capture or kill in that offensive. The Pal terrorist organizations wont survive another offensive like that

Defensive shield came at the end of a month of attacks that left 65 dead civilians in Israel. However, look at the typical trends:

Oct 8
Nov 6
Dec 23
Jan 9
Feb 1
Mar 65 Defensive shield launched end Mar, continued throughout April
April 13
May 24

That's civilians inside Israel. I've left out Palestinian dead, and IDF casualties, which were of course much higher during the operation than normal.

April, the month when defensive shield took place, was the 4th highest of the current intifada, May, the month imidiately following, was the second highest on record.

The Pal terrorist organizations wont survive another offensive like that.

Note the bombing yesterday of the fuel depot. It nearly blew up the entire plant. It was a more sophisticated attack than normal, and would have been devestating, not just in casualties but economic terms. It supplies 70% of Israel's petrol, and has now been closed.

I disagree. There are other options.

None that will work. Israel has gone as far as it dares down the road of collective punishment.

Read the article I posted from the Israeli governments own website about the typical suicide bomber. It says they are poor, uneducated, and have a history of being victimised by the IDF.

In other words, more reprisals equal more suicide bombers.