-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Israel attempts to steal more Palestinian land
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
War is a dirty business. The only war that Isreal initiated was the conflict in was 67 and that was because Egypt blockaded the naval port (an act of war). All lands currently occupied were siezed in armed conflict from aggressor nations (Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon). As has been stated numerous times you lose rights to land when you engage in war, borders are redrawn by the winner.
The Palestinians and Arab supporters want to change the rules because they lost. The reality is that Israel is entilted to all the land they occupy. I think personally that they should withdraw to the green line but they may be beyond the point of return with the west bank settlements at this point and the Palestinians are going to have to attribute the loss of their land to their inability to make peace with Isreal.
Sorry but you are wrong, Israel does not make the rules, international law is THE rule and specifically says that settlements, the wall etc. are against the law. You can repeat the lies as much as you want, but it will never be true.
Even Israeli court said that the wall going through Palestinian land should be rerouted and decided that seizing the land abandoned by Palestinians should not be allowed and is illegal.
I agree with you though that it will be tough to remove majority of the settlements, but that was the original Israeli plan. Just like they planned to build the wall through Palestinian land and then seize one side of it because it was abandoned. After all, Israel is lead by a man who committed his whole career to land-grabbing.
International law?? WOW. The UN has no power telling Israel what to do and besides, the UN is a anti-Israel organization that has members like Lybia as one of its human rights watchers. By International Law you are implieing Israel should listen to the UN while terrorists are blowing up children on public buses? Also the UN approved the creation of the state of Israel, back when the UN had some credibility. The Arabs lost badly in that war and Israel showed a lot of mercy for them, if you look at it fairly. Israel could have taken a lot more Arab land if it wanted to, just be thankful it did not.
Israel is not led by one man, you could not be more wrong. It is a democracy, something its neighbors could learn from. It has checks and balances, while some of its neighbors are decades away before even being anywhere near that. The fence Israel has built is one of the reasons why there are fewer and fewer terrorist attacks, NOT because the terrorists suddenly had a change of heart.
Thats why no terrorists come out of the Gaza Strip.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
MYTH
?The Geneva Convention prohibits the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories.?
FACT
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank and Gaza Strip; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others. In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. "The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there," according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.4
As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...rce/myths/mf22a.html#c
you got article 49 wrong apparently. Geneva Conventions
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 49)
The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.
Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.
If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.
Israel is not moving the Palestinians off their land.
The land was either unused or left.
why it was left is a different subject, depending on your political views.
The Arabs are not be packed into boxcaas and dropped on the other side of the river or dumped into the camps.
Until one accepts that the Arabs were eager (and some still are) to exterminate Israel, it becomes hard to understand why Israel has to defend itself without performing a scorched earth policy.
The land was either unused or left.
why it was left is a different subject, depending on your political views.
The Arabs are not be packed into boxcaas and dropped on the other side of the river or dumped into the camps.
Until one accepts that the Arabs were eager (and some still are) to exterminate Israel, it becomes hard to understand why Israel has to defend itself without performing a scorched earth policy.
So, we have Oroo Oroo telling us that land isn't confiscated from people who have no rights under israeli law unless no "rights" are violated... and eaglekeeper telling us that orchards and pastures are "unused", and that building a wall between a farmer and his fields means that the fields are now abandoned...
And, of course, the undercurrent that Israeli repression and confiscation are a response to palestinian terrorism, rather than the cause of it...
Yep, that's some catch, that catch-22...
And, of course, the undercurrent that Israeli repression and confiscation are a response to palestinian terrorism, rather than the cause of it...
Yep, that's some catch, that catch-22...
Would you look at that, BrooBroo is back to using his ?pro-Israel, not baised? (as he likes to call them) sources.
NOT BIASED FACT
BBC: The Geneva Convention
Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The United States has in the past called the settlements illegal, but has more recently used milder language, at least in public.
However, the Mitchell report into the causes of Palestinian-Israeli violence that began in September 2000 said:
"...customary international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits Israel (as an occupying power) from establishing settlements in occupied territory pending an end to the conflict."
Apparently I got the article right. I?m talking about Convention IV Article 49. Look it up again.
EDIT: It just proves my point that you do not even know what you?re talking about, all you can do is cut and paste from your ?pro-Israel? sources.
For the first two items that you claim are false, please provide evidence, not propaganda to the contrary.
Using the Jenin type massacre does not qualify.
Your first link is dead.
The second contains not details unless you need the audio. I will listen to the audio later.
The basic premise that one needs to look at is:
Did the Palestinians looe the land because of an Israel grab.
Or
Did they lose the land because they side with the loser and Israel was forced to defend and protect itself.
Note that they never had a country to begin with. No government or boundaries.
They chose to attempt to take over all of Palestine and ended up originally nothing.
What they currently have is because Israel has been willing to trade land for peace.
Just from yesterday's article: Guardian Unlimited
The Israeli government has quietly seized thousands of acres of Palestinian-owned land in and around east Jerusalem after a secret cabinet decision to use a 55-year-old law against Arabs separated from farms and orchards by the vast "security barrier".
... The West Bank town of Beit Jala, near the Jewish settlement of Gilo, asked the Israeli government to route the barrier so that residents could still reach their land without passing through a checkpoint. The authorities refused and the army now says that everything on the Jerusalem side of the barrier - about 1,000 acres, which provide an income for 200 families - has been seized.
The state has also appropriated a once thriving hotel, the Cliff, on the edge of east Jerusalem even though the owners live nearby. When the army started building the eight-metre-high concrete wall that bisects the area, it seized the hotel for "security needs".
Human Rights Watch
Israel's insistence on the "temporary" nature of the structure is questionable, given the barrier's enormous cost and the indisputable fact that other supposedly temporary Israeli policies - including the settlements themselves - have become effectively permanent. And some of its effects, including the widespread destruction of housing and agricultural land along the route, are undoubtedly of a permanent nature.
BBC
There have been house demolitions, the clearing of fields, and the destruction of olive groves. The closure of the Palestinian territories led to a blockading of towns and villages that has devastated the Palestinian economy.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
the source. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-49.htm
sorry, its not a pro israel source.
and frankly it didn't take you long to get back to name calling.
and frankly "international consensus" means little in terms of ethical correctness. the international body of the un puts states like china/cuba/libya in charge of human rights for godsakes. the need to use the term "widely accepted" when making your case means it is only an interpretation. popularity of interpretation is not the same as being right.
from your own link it explains israels justification.Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place
and why aren't you riled up about the forcible transfer of german citizens to make way for polish ones after ww2?
so you understand the fourth geneva convention and its historical reasons for being, and rather inconsistent application😛
The Fourth Geneva Convention
The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control. In the fifty years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention has never been used to condemn world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Tibet, etc.
Since 1997 the Arab group at the United Nations has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, in regard to its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and in particular at Har Homa in Jerusalem. The UN General Assembly has adopted a number of non-binding resolutions condemning Israeli settlements, and calling for a convening of the signatory nations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In February 1999, the GA adopted a resolution calling for a special UN session to be held on July 15, 1999, in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel.
Israel rejects the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention applying it to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.
Switzerland is the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention. This means that the Swiss are technically responsible for organizing and convening a meeting of the signatory nations. However, the Swiss may only convene the meeting if a majority of the signatory nations agree to do so.
ADL [and other organizations] have vigorously opposed convening the Fourth Geneva Convention in regard to Israeli settlements arguing that it could dangerously politicize the international legitimacy and high standings of the Geneva Conventions. It could open a Pandora?s box across the globe haphazardly applying the convention to a plethora of nations. Furthermore, it would give credence to the Palestinian tactic of using the international community to air grievances regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and thereby threatens the peace process itself.
International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down the July 15th special UN meeting in Geneva. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories."
Source: Copyright Anti-Defamation League (ADL). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
why is it that the "international community" doesn't yell and scream about the geneva conventions when a suicide bomber kills a bus full of people eh? its just politics. the geneva conventions are about laws governing the "humane conduct of war". and you think palestinian tactics targeting civilians pass even minimal humanitarian standards? lol.. sad. its fundamentally hypocritical to bring up geneva to defend the palestinians. i mean seriously...it does say something about not using terrorism against civilians you know😛 art 13 for one😛
and frankly, the fence is justified in the minds of any rational person when it is proven to save the lives of civilians who are under constant threat of attack. if the palestinians didn't want a fence, they shouldn't have turned to terrorism. i mean really, shame on israel for stopping those suicide bombers😛
It didn?t take you long to post text from worthless sources?.you?ll never learn, how sad.
It?s the same as asking a criminal whether they committed a crime, what answer do you expect?
Even Israel?s biggest ally, United States, says that settlements are illegal. You can dispute the validity of UN as much as you want, it doesn?t change the fact that it is supported by almost 200 countries and almost all of them disagree with Israel. Additionally, UN is not the only international organization that says the settlements are illegal by the way. So it?s the culprit Israel vs. the world?who is right?hmmm
Is Anti-Defamation League (ADL) another one of your ?pro-Israel, not biased? run by Zionists sources?
I think the security fence is a brilliant idea! Unbelievable, we actually agree on something. The only thing I do not agree with is how it was build through Palestinian land as a pre-determined land grab.
Based on the Guardian article, I can see where it looks like a land grab.
The location of the fence may have originally been planned for security purposes, however, once it is in place, economic/political factors have come into play.
By the Israeli government not explaining/justifying some of the actions, makes it more suspicious that some items are being used as retaliation and politics vs security needs.
===============
The barrier itself is needed, it has been shown that where applied, it is effective. The Palestinians on the West bank had the opportunity to on there own prevent the need for it and they chose or were unable not to do so.
The Berlin wall lasted for 40-50 years, this wall could eventually come down when Israel no longer feels threatened. The consequences of the Berlin Wall & Eastern Germany were devestating economically and socially; one can see how it is affecting the German economy and social structure by trying to absorb the impact of such isolation.
The same will probably happen with the West Bank. Jordan did not want them and Israel does not trust them. It may be when the Palestian militants are finally suppressed, the Palestinian system will be in such disarray, that it will not be able to function without handouts.
With the Palestian economy so dependent on exported labor and handouts will it be able to feed & improve itself with some of its resource throttled back.
They may end up like Haiti.
I agree that the security fence is effective and I doubt anyone would oppose it if it wasn?t for its detrimental route.
Going back to the original post ~ it seems that the location of the fence was planned from the beginning to enlarge Israel and its settlements. The whole process of building settlements, then building a wall protecting those settlements, then destroying houses and properties close to the wall and then claiming the land on the other side of the wall, is absurd.
In the end, it?s regrettable that people who argue for Israel?s policies feel sorry for innocent Israelis (as they should) but at the same time are unable to put themselves in shoes of innocent Palestinians.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
