Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Well, Israel offered citizenship to the Palestinians living in east Jerusalem when it annexed it, but most places don't recognize east Jerusalem as part of Israel.

Jerusalme (and bethlehem) werte not given either side in 1948, and most states have stayed with that decision (hence, the fact that few if any states recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel).

[Ned]

gsmoove, whether the settlements are "illegal" under the 4th Geneva Convention should, IMHO, be a question decided by a court after a full opportunity to be heard by interested parties. I do not believe Israel was given due process here when the resolution you cited was passed.

But to demonstrate the UN bias, can you find any resolutions condemning the use of terrorism against Israel? I think all would agree that terrorism is a violation of a host of universal treaties. Yet not a peep from the UN?

Regardless of the fairness, the resolution you cited on the settlements is the only resolution on this issue that the US did not veto, IIRC. Why it did not veto the resolution is a wonder. But it did not.

So the matter remains as follows: The settlements violate a UNSC resolution. Terrorism violates the laws of war. Both should end.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


They were recognized in 1950

Source?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
But to demonstrate the UN bias, can you find any resolutions condemning the use of terrorism against Israel? I think all would agree that terrorism is a violation of a host of universal treaties. Yet not a peep from the UN?

Actually Ned, every single UN SC resolution dealing with this issue for many years now has condemend Palestinains violence. So actually, I could say that at least half a dozen UN resolutions condem palestinians terrorism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Source?

I know what i knows' look it up, i don;t have the time, and if you don;t care too, don;t believe me, i don;t care.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Jerusalme (and bethlehem) werte not given either side in 1948,

So then it doesn't matter whether Israel gives citizenship or annexs the territories or whatever, since the 1948 borders are permanent and forever - is that what you're saying?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

I know what i knows' look it up, i don;t have the time, and if you don;t care too, don;t believe me, i don;t care.

Then I'll assume it's false, because I've never heard of the 1948 borders becoming permanent borders in 1950.
(It also doesn't mke much sense, because the 1948 borders would have included a Palestinian state, on ethat is certainly not recognized by the rest of the world...)

[GePap]

No, I was answering your query about jerusalem and most countries.

The borders that came about in 1949-50 are the recognized borders of the states in the region. Look at a map not from either side (ie, everyone elses).

The Egyptians never claimed Gaza as thier own, had it under military rule, and in theory, it remained the olnly bit of the Arab states to be created in Palestine in 1947. Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank in the mid 80's ( a claim that the Arab league had denounced Jordan for making and enforcing), but Jordan never gave custody then to Israel. So neither Gaza nor the west bank are recognized by any nation of the world (including the US) to be a part of israel, but isnetad territories who's final stautes is yet to be determined, but under israeli military occupation, and hence under the Geneva convention.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
No, I was answering your query about jerusalem and most countries.

The borders that came about in 1949-50 are the recognized borders of the states in the region. Look at a map not from either side (ie, everyone elses).

No. Those were cease fire lines only. Not borders. Remember, all of the countries were only ever in a state of cease-fire with Israel, and still technically at war. (with the exception of Iraq, which has always in a state of war with Israel, with no ceasefire. I wonder if they'll bother to make a ceasefire treaty now...) 242 was created, in part, to make permanent and secure borders (through peaceful means) for all sides.

The Egyptians never claimed Gaza as thier own, had it under military rule, and in theory, it remained the olnly bit of the Arab states to be created in Palestine in 1947. Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank in the mid 80's ( a claim that the Arab league had denounced Jordan for making and enforcing), but Jordan never gave custody then to Israel.

But Jordan's "claim" to the west bank is no different than Israel's and was no more (or less) legitimate.

[GePap]

On settlements:

The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.

from:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/overview.htm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
On settlements:

Quote:

The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.

from:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/overview.htm

those contradict the absence of legal boundaries. I will await a source for the 1950 item.

RE: 242 - yes it called for Israel to withdraw from territories - it did not specify ALL territories - in fact the word "the" was specifically excluded - which makes sense as the territories are disputed, and it was envisioned by the security council that the final boundary would NOT be the 1949 ceasefire line.

[lord of the mark]

"but isnetad territories who's final stautes is yet to be determined, but under israeli military occupation, and hence under the Geneva convention."


final status yet to be determined - IE disputed territories, like i said. The Geneva convention restrictions apply, IIUC, where there is NO disputed about the disposition of territory but there is a purely military occupation IE situations like the current US occupation of Iraq.

Otherwise what are to we make of the legal status of the PA in those areas of Gaza and the West Bank where Israel forces are NOT present - are those considered to be disputed territories under Palestinian occupation? Is Palestinian settlement there banned under the Geneva convention?

No, for the Geneva convention to apply, the territory must be recognized as belonging to someone other than the "occupying" power, and cannot apply in territories whose final status is yet to be determined.

[Eli]

Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?

And just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, I assure you that it wasnt me.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
On settlements:

Quote:

The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.

from:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/overview.htm

Anyone actually reading the 4th Geneva convention and knowing the history of the territory would have a hard time agreeing that there is a slam dunk case that it applies to Palestine. Acceptance of the principle that it does apply means that the Jews have no right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza. However they had this right during the Mandate. That right had been given them by the Balfour declaration. The Balfour declaration as incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate.

If they lost the rights they formerly had as nationals of the Palestinian Mandate, how did they lose them? Did they lose them because of military action by the Arab states surrounding the Mandate territory. What about the fundamental principle of international law that such rights cannot be lost as a result of military action?

The status of the lands outside of Israel and within the borders of the Mandate are undetermined. In 1948, those lands were offered to the people residing there at the time for the purposed of forming a state. But those people did not form a state, but set about trying to deny the Jews the right to form thier own state. Soon, however, Palestine outside the cease fire lines was occuppied by foreign Arab powers. Israel drove the foreigners out of Palestine in 1967, restoring the status quo ante to 1947-8: undetermined.

It is important to note here that the land upon which the settlers settle is NOT part of Israel. Israel has not annexed those lands. The land remains disputed, as they were in 1947-8.

But the problem is, as we all know, that possession is 90% of the law. This is what concerns the "Palestinians." Even though the lands are not part of Israel, they worry that Israel will never give them up. Given the history of the division of the lands in 1947-8, it is clear that their concerns are well founded.

To the extent that the "Paletinians" want "back"all the land formerly occuppied by Jordan and Egypt, the settlements represent an obstacle to peace to the extent that the Goverment of Israel insist that they instead become part of Israel. This has nothing to do with "legalities." So regardless of who is right on the legal issues, the UN issued its resolutions in 1979 and 1980. Israel should abide by these UN resolutions regardless of the merits of the their legal argument.

However, on the same score, those who support the Palestinian side should simply drop the statement that the settlements are "illegal." That is unnecessary and inflammatory. It is sufficient that the UN has called for a halt.

[gsmoove23]

The fact that it is disputed territory is a strawman as it doesn't change its status as occupied territory (ie, militarily occupied where the original inhabitants are not given citizenship) and the Geneva Conventions do not make a distinction about this. It is also an obvious attempt to change the nature of the dispute while it is still in progress.

Ned, I don't understand how calling settlements illegal is inflammatory when it is true. This was also in the 1979 and 80 resolutions and has been repeated in a number of follow-up resolutions.

[Alvaro]

tiny reference to original subject:

The IDF's only assualt rifle is the M16/M4 (different variants) which is always 5.56.

The IDF's other infantry issued weapons are the Negev LMG (5..56) and the MAG, which is 7.62.

The MAG fires in long bursts, unlike the Negev or any assault rifle, it does not have a 'single' mode. A burst from that would have not only killed the father but also made autopsy very difficult since the 2 corpses would be in tragic shape.

The MAG is never used in daylight operations, with the exception of the unit being under siege in the outpost with masses threatening to invade, which was definitely not the case with our kid.

It is very difficult to recognise a MAG bullet since it's more powerful than that of the AK47 which suffers from an acute lack of gunpowder inspite of having the same caliber.

----

Palestinian arms: The Oslo agreement handed 40,000 light weapons to the palestinian police and other law enforcement bodies, needless to say that the majority of these weapons have fired onto Israeli citizens and almost half have been since captured/destroyed.

The majority of these weapons were captured AK47's from Israel's wars. But Israel did not have 40,000 AK's so a substantial amount of M16's was given.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"but isnetad territories who's final stautes is yet to be determined, but under israeli military occupation, and hence under the Geneva convention."


final status yet to be determined - IE disputed territories, like i said. The Geneva convention restrictions apply, IIUC, where there is NO disputed about the disposition of territory but there is a purely military occupation IE situations like the current US occupation of Iraq.

Otherwise what are to we make of the legal status of the PA in those areas of Gaza and the West Bank where Israel forces are NOT present - are those considered to be disputed territories under Palestinian occupation? Is Palestinian settlement there banned under the Geneva convention?

No, for the Geneva convention to apply, the territory must be recognized as belonging to someone other than the "occupying" power, and cannot apply in territories whose final status is yet to be determined.

Please!

Sorry, but that 'explinatio" ignores many salient facts.

1. In 1948 Israel declared its independence without declaring borders. The 1950 armistice lines have been agreed to be the borders of the state of Israel since then, just as the armistice line between Norht and South k0rea is seen as the border. if NK troops cressed into the South, under the DMZ, at least according to this way of thinking, they would not be occupiers, noly in "despitued territory".

2. UNSCR 242 states Israel must withdrwa from occupied territories. Fine, quible over the abscensce of a "the", but it is clear that in 1967, before any settlements were built, Isreal was already seen as being an occupying power.

3. If what you say is correct, ALL of ISREAL is disputed territory, plus, the Plaestinians still ahe the right to returns, and since the borders of Israel, according to you, are not set, what argument can Jews make about their state being inudated by Arabs? Just et the Palestinains back, then finalize a set of borders that gives you a mojority Jewsish state, NO?

Israel is seen as the occupying power. UNSCR are the laws. Settlements are, until a final agreemn is reached, ILLEGAL.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Alvaro
tiny reference to original subject:

The IDF's only assualt rifle is the M16/M4 (different variants) which is always 5.56.

The IDF's other infantry issued weapons are the Negev LMG (5..56) and the MAG, which is 7.62.

The MAG fires in long bursts, unlike the Negev or any assault rifle, it does not have a 'single' mode. A burst from that would have not only killed the father but also made autopsy very difficult since the 2 corpses would be in tragic shape.

The MAG is never used in daylight operations, with the exception of the unit being under siege in the outpost with masses threatening to invade, which was definitely not the case with our kid.

It is very difficult to recognise a MAG bullet since it's more powerful than that of the AK47 which suffers from an acute lack of gunpowder inspite of having the same caliber.

----

Palestinian arms: The Oslo agreement handed 40,000 light weapons to the palestinian police and other law enforcement bodies, needless to say that the majority of these weapons have fired onto Israeli citizens and almost half have been since captured/destroyed.

The majority of these weapons were captured AK47's from Israel's wars. But Israel did not have 40,000 AK's so a substantial amount of M16's was given.

hi ,

care to explain then as to why some naval and land units use the ak , ....

or the tavor , minimi , galil , etc , .....

we have a bigger choice of weapons then any other army in the world , ....

as for oslo , what about them rpg 's then , ....

have a nice day

[CyberGnu]

GePap:

Anyone actually reading the 4th Geneva convention and knowing the history of the territory would have a hard time agreeing that there is a slam dunk case that it applies to Palestine. Acceptance of the principle that it does apply means that the Jews have no right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza. However they had this right during the Mandate. That right had been given them by the Balfour declaration. The Balfour declaration as incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate.

If they lost the rights they formerly had as nationals of the Palestinian Mandate, how did they lose them? Did they lose them because of military action by the Arab states surrounding the Mandate territory. What about the fundamental principle of international law that such rights cannot be lost as a result of military action?

The settlements are illegal because they create ethnically purified zones, and are thus considered ethnic cleansing.

A jew has the same right as anyone else to settle in gaza, as long as he doesn't try to claim his plot of land a sovereign state. Of course, it is up to the goverment to affirm/deny his immigration.

[Ned]

gsmoove, calling the settlements illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention is inflammatory because it is extremely biased against Israel. It assumes as fact issues that have not been legally determined.

How would you feel if you were on trial for murder and the prosecutioin, instead of calling you the "accused," called you the "murderer."

"Now, Ms. Jones, on the night of 25th, did you see the murderer, Mr. gsmoove, at the scene of the crime?"

"Mr. Smith, please point out the murderer for the jury."

gsmoove, I hope you understand my point and have some sympathy for the fact that matters are not clearly established adversely to Israel. The statement that the settlers have no right to live in the West Bank or Gaza assumes that that land is legally part of another State (what state?) and not part of the Palestinian Mandate. If it is the latter, and clearly it is, Jews had under the Mandate just as much right to settle on land in the West Bank and Gaza as do Arabs.

How did they lose that right?

[Alvaro]

Tavor?? it's barely passed testing (after almost a decade) and is used by a massive total of 4 platoons. We don't have the funds to kill off the long M16's and produce Tavor's. And its a 5.56 anyhow and the caliber of the killer round was mentioned.

the minimi is similar to the Negev and is not worthy of a mention since it operates on the same principles - only less effectively so.

I was refering to the infantry portion of our army. The non mobile units (armour, AA, artillery, homefront comand rear pencil-pushers) are the only ones to carry the heavy galil variants and the dated uzis.

"we have a bigger choice of weapons then any other army in the world , ...."

which naturally makes us look more like a gang of pirates than one of the best armies in the world...

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
GePap:


The settlements are illegal because they create ethnically purified zones, and are thus considered ethnic cleansing.

A jew has the same right as anyone else to settle in gaza, as long as he doesn't try to claim his plot of land a sovereign state. Of course, it is up to the goverment to affirm/deny his immigration.

The last part I agree with. The status of the settlers and the land they live on is under dispute. They have no legal right to have it fall under Israeli sovereignity.

As to the ethnic cleansing bit, this is like blaming the sheep for the fence between them and the wolves.

[GePap]

Don't you mean Ned, cybergnu?

Ned:

gsmoove, I hope you understand my point and have some sympathy for the fact that matters are not clearly established adversely to Israel. The statement that the settlers have no right to live in the West Bank or Gaza assumes that that land is legally part of another State (what state?) and not part of the Palestinian Mandate. If it is the latter, and clearly it is, Jews had under the Mandate just as much right to settle on land in the West Bank and Gaza as do Arabs.

How did they lose that right?

The british mandate ended in 1947. Any rights Jews had in it ended when it ended. Besides, the agreement that ended the British madate called for a partition of the madate into an Arab and a jewish state. That the Arab state in the madate has yet to be declared (due tothe acts of both Jews and Arabs from outside) does not mean that the Arabs living there somehow lost the right they ahve to self-determination, and one of the rights osf self-determination is deciding who can immigrate into your land.

I assume, given your position Ned, that you support the unconditional right of Return for Palestinian refugees?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Alvaro
Tavor?? it's barely passed testing (after almost a decade) and is used by a massive total of 4 platoons. We don't have the funds to kill off the long M16's and produce Tavor's. And its a 5.56 anyhow and the caliber of the killer round was mentioned.

the minimi is similar to the Negev and is not worthy of a mention since it operates on the same principles - only less effectively so.

I was refering to the infantry portion of our army. The non mobile units (armour, AA, artillery, homefront comand rear pencil-pushers) are the only ones to carry the heavy galil variants and the dated uzis.

"we have a bigger choice of weapons then any other army in the world , ...."

which naturally makes us look more like a gang of pirates than one of the best armies in the world...

hi ,

a unit can decide what weapon it wants , ...

we have not only captured more the 200 000 hand weapons since 1972 we also happen to make them , ....

seen them new 'Golani' with m16's in cal .45 , ....

as for the tavor , about 900 people have them now , the border guards are getting more , ....

not a single word on the naval com's who use the ak , ....


, we could open a thread on weapons and ammo , this aint the right one for it , ....

have a nice night

[CyberGnu]

Gepap, I sure did. sorry!

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
GePap:


The settlements are illegal because they create ethnically purified zones, and are thus considered ethnic cleansing.

A jew has the same right as anyone else to settle in gaza, as long as he doesn't try to claim his plot of land a sovereign state. Of course, it is up to the goverment to affirm/deny his immigration.

sure , a people that ones themselfs was "cleansed" now does it to others ,...

what else arez you going to share with us that we dont know a thing about yet we do , ... according to you , ....

you dont even know what rights and obligations we have in Gaza , ... or are you going to tell us what we can do and what rights we have , ...

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Don't you mean Ned, cybergnu?

Ned:

Quote:

gsmoove, I hope you understand my point and have some sympathy for the fact that matters are not clearly established adversely to Israel. The statement that the settlers have no right to live in the West Bank or Gaza assumes that that land is legally part of another State (what state?) and not part of the Palestinian Mandate. If it is the latter, and clearly it is, Jews had under the Mandate just as much right to settle on land in the West Bank and Gaza as do Arabs. How did they lose that right?

The british mandate ended in 1947. Any rights Jews had in it ended when it ended. Besides, the agreement that ended the British madate called for a partition of the madate into an Arab and a jewish state. That the Arab state in the madate has yet to be declared (due tothe acts of both Jews and Arabs from outside) does not mean that the Arabs living there somehow lost the right they ahve to self-determination, and one of the rights osf self-determination is deciding who can immigrate into your land.

I assume, given your position Ned, that you support the unconditional right of Return for Palestinian refugees?

The Mandate ended? Not really - not with respect to the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has, however, been recognzed as a state.

I have read UN documents which seem to acknowlege that Israel is now the adminstrator of the West Bank and Gaza, a role that once was the UK's. They have certain legal obligations to the Palestinians under the Mandate and the Balfour declaration. Among these are that Jewish settlement not disrupt the Arabs, IIRC. Now, if we want to discuss whether Jewish settlement has been disrupting the Arabs, which is somewhat what CyberGnu said, then we can talk. But stating that all Jewish settlement is illegal goes way too far.

As to the RoR, after so many years, it would be unfair to have exiles return and take over land they once owned. However, they should be fairly compensated for their land.

The way they should do this, IMHO, is to estimate the total valued of confiscated land and divide this equally among the exiles - unless a particular exile family had good deeds and proofs that he or she should receive larger compensation.

As to where they should live -

Well I personally believe the whole country should be one state, not two. But if there are two, the Arabs "should" live in the Arab state. But, the exiles should have a right to live anywhere in Palestine that he or she wants. This would indeed be consistent with Jewish rights to do the same thing. What I see happening though is a reshuffling of population. Jews would move from the settlements to Israel. Arabs, including exiles, would move into the vacated settlements.

[CyberGnu]

Ned:
Out of curiosity, what is your stance on Israel's assassination policy? (and for the sake of argument, let's ignore the bluntness of it for the moment).

As to the ethnic cleansing bit, this is like blaming the sheep for the fence between them and the wolves.

Bad analogy... Neither side is a 'sheep' here. Israel is the stronger part. The only things the palestinians have are the moral high ground, the law, and the ability to occaisonally pinprick Israel. But even that is more than what a sheep can do to a wolf, is it not?

[CyberGnu]

Ned

But stating that all Jewish settlement is illegal goes way too far.

Ethnic cleansing IS illegal...

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned:
Out of curiosity, what is your stance on Israel's assassination policy? (and for the sake of argument, let's ignore the bluntness of it for the moment).



Bad analogy... Neither side is a 'sheep' here. Israel is the stronger part. The only things the palestinians have are the moral high ground, the law, and the ability to occaisonally pinprick Israel. But even that is more than what a sheep can do to a wolf, is it not?

wow , we have a policy , sjee , what else are you going to tell us that we do yet we dont know , .....