US Public is Fairer than US Foreign Policy

[Roudy]

Which are??

How do you think all these Muslim countries became Muslim? It wasn't because they fell in love with it.

My bad. I didn't realize the Geneva Conventions were in affect during the Crusades.

Crusades? Study the history of a Islam and see what Islam has done long after the Crusades ended.

Speaking of which, you do know that the whole purpose of the Crusades was to drive the Muslim invaders out of Europe, don't you? Had Muslims not done what their prophet had commanded them to since the beginning of Islam, there would never have been the need for Europeans to repel the Muslim invaders off their lands.

 

[BobbyMac]

Bin dun here a dozen times the past 2 years. Look it up yourself.

I looked it up before I responded to that post and there are no such words.

You're looking in the wrong places. A legal opinion:

TOSS THE TRAVAUX?
APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION TO THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT-A MODERN (RE)ASSESSMENT
DAVID JOHN BALL
... At the center of the human rights discussion stands the Fourth Geneva Convention, an international agreement codifying certain rules of war designed to protect civilians caught in the midst of conflict.
The bulk of the literature calls for Israel's application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and hones in on methods for Convention enforcement. In this Note, however, David John Ball argues that the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference from the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or the travaux preparatoires, makes clear that the Convention does not apply to nonstates. The Note undertakes a close reading of the travaux and finds that the widely accepted interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention contained in the Pictet Commentary cannot justify its application in the Middle East context. Specifically, the travaux reflects that the drafting states' concerns over sovereign rights following World War II led to a disconnect between the Convention's allegedly humanitarian aim of protecting civilians above all else and its capability to do so in all situations.
Instead, the drafting states neither intended nor created a treaty capable of application to the complex situation existing in the Middle East. The unique history and prolonged occupation of the region, given the statements contained in the travaux, reveals that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the conflict between Israel and the nonstate entity commonly known as "Palestine." This Note concludes that eliminating incorrect assumptions about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is crucial to making progress toward political and legal resolutions to the conflict.

Wow, an opinion of some guy named David John Ball. By all means this singular guy must be right while everyone else is wrong!!

 

[BobbyMac]

How do you think all these Muslim countries became Muslim? It wasn't because they fell in love with it.

My bad. I didn't realize the Geneva Conventions were in affect during the Crusades.

Crusades? Study the history of a Islam and see what Islam has done long after the Crusades ended.

Speaking of which, you do know that the whole purpose of the Crusades was to drive the Muslim invaders out of Europe, don't you? Had Muslims not done what their prophet had commanded them to since the beginning of Islam, there would never have been the need for Europeans to repel the Muslim invaders off their lands.

I don't think the Crusades were right or just either. People have done horrific things in the name of religion. Some still do. I don't support any political entity centered on religion.

My previous, obvious, point being you can't apply international law to events that transpired before the laws were in place.

 

[Kondor3]

Israel's retention of land captured in Arab-initiated wars, is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Wake me up when Geneva stops-by to enforce it...

==============================

Maybe, next time, your Arab butt-buddies won't be so gung-ho, to attack Israel?

 

[BobbyMac]

In their decisions on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice and Supreme Court of Israel have both ruled that the West Bank is occupied.[4][5] The US State Department also considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip occupied.[4]

The ICJ outlined the legal rationale for the supporters of this view in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004. It noted:

...under customary international law as reflected (...) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907&#8221, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

 

[Kondor3]

"Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it."

( apocryphally attributed to President Andrew Jackson )

 

[Roudy]

My bad. I didn't realize the Geneva Conventions were in affect during the Crusades.

Crusades? Study the history of a Islam and see what Islam has done long after the Crusades ended.

Speaking of which, you do know that the whole purpose of the Crusades was to drive the Muslim invaders out of Europe, don't you? Had Muslims not done what their prophet had commanded them to since the beginning of Islam, there would never have been the need for Europeans to repel the Muslim invaders off their lands.

I don't think the Crusades were right or just either. People have done horrific things in the name of religion. Some still do. I don't support any political entity centered on religion.

My previous, obvious, point being you can't apply international law to events that transpired before the laws were in place.

Muslims are still committing ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout the globe. Except in case of Israel, it just won't let them do their Muslim "thing".

Wake up and smell the Jihad.

 

[Roudy]

Israel's retention of land captured in Arab-initiated wars, is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Wake me up when Geneva stops-by to enforce it...

==============================

Maybe, next time, your Arab butt-buddies won't be so gung-ho, to attack Israel?

Arabs always want a do-over after they get their butts kicked.

 

[BobbyMac]

Crusades? Study the history of a Islam and see what Islam has done long after the Crusades ended.

Speaking of which, you do know that the whole purpose of the Crusades was to drive the Muslim invaders out of Europe, don't you? Had Muslims not done what their prophet had commanded them to since the beginning of Islam, there would never have been the need for Europeans to repel the Muslim invaders off their lands.

I don't think the Crusades were right or just either. People have done horrific things in the name of religion. Some still do. I don't support any political entity centered on religion.

My previous, obvious, point being you can't apply international law to events that transpired before the laws were in place.

Muslims are still committing ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout the globe. Except in case of Israel, it just won't let them do their Muslim "thing".

Wake up and smell the Jihad.

What part about " some still do" didn't you get?

 

[MHunterB]

I looked it up before I responded to that post and there are no such words.

You're looking in the wrong places. A legal opinion:

TOSS THE TRAVAUX?
APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION TO THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT-A MODERN (RE)ASSESSMENT
DAVID JOHN BALL
... At the center of the human rights discussion stands the Fourth Geneva Convention, an international agreement codifying certain rules of war designed to protect civilians caught in the midst of conflict.
The bulk of the literature calls for Israel's application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and hones in on methods for Convention enforcement. In this Note, however, David John Ball argues that the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference from the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or the travaux preparatoires, makes clear that the Convention does not apply to nonstates. The Note undertakes a close reading of the travaux and finds that the widely accepted interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention contained in the Pictet Commentary cannot justify its application in the Middle East context. Specifically, the travaux reflects that the drafting states' concerns over sovereign rights following World War II led to a disconnect between the Convention's allegedly humanitarian aim of protecting civilians above all else and its capability to do so in all situations.
Instead, the drafting states neither intended nor created a treaty capable of application to the complex situation existing in the Middle East. The unique history and prolonged occupation of the region, given the statements contained in the travaux, reveals that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the conflict between Israel and the nonstate entity commonly known as "Palestine." This Note concludes that eliminating incorrect assumptions about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is crucial to making progress toward political and legal resolutions to the conflict.

Wow, an opinion of some guy named David John Ball. By all means this singular guy must be right while everyone else is wrong!!

Well, there is an appellate/litigation attorney by that name: he's a partner in a NY law firm David J. Ball, Litigation and Appellate Lawyer, New York Attorney, Bracewell | Bracewell & Giuliani

If it's the same individual, his opinions are based on quite a lot of experience in the legal field.....

 

[Roudy]

I don't think the Crusades were right or just either. People have done horrific things in the name of religion. Some still do. I don't support any political entity centered on religion.

My previous, obvious, point being you can't apply international law to events that transpired before the laws were in place.

Muslims are still committing ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout the globe. Except in case of Israel, it just won't let them do their Muslim "thing".

Wake up and smell the Jihad.

What part about " some still do" didn't you get?

Let's be honest. The "some" you are talking about are exclusively Muslims. You cannot attribute the same behavior to members of other faiths.

 

[aris2chat]

I agree . Compare my analogy to the 67 War. They initiated the War in a attemp to destroy Israel and confiscate their land. If they had Won Israel would not exist. They lost and demanding their " land" ( It's not even theirs) back ?

Keeping captured lands is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

That would be lands captured from another signee to the Conventions.

Egypt, Syria and Jordan kept land they captured, or occupied. There was not state that owned the land as the creation of a palestinian state was refused at the UN. You think if the palestinians/arabs captured Israel, after it declared it's independence and was recognized by the world, that it would give back a blade of grass? Palestinians want to be recognized by the UN, they want to use the UN, but they don't want to be part of the UN or their "rules". They can give grand and effective speeches, but away from the podium and away from UN eyes their actions tell a different story.
It is like the boy that throws a rock at his brother hitting him in the head and then hides behind his mothers skirt, points to his brother head bleeding and says "he did it".
They want the protection of the UN but don't want to follow the expected behavior or rules of the UN.

 

[aris2chat]

Israel's retention of land captured in Arab-initiated wars, is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Wake me up when Geneva stops-by to enforce it...

==============================

Maybe, next time, your Arab butt-buddies won't be so gung-ho, to attack Israel?

Going into an area with intent to take and keep it is against the convention, but Israel captures land in a defensive war. Their laws permits them to keep the land.
Israel has taken and returned land to Lebanon several times, it does not want it. Shebaa was taken from Syria not Lebanon. It was take by Syria back int 1949 and mapped as Syrian in the 1949 demarcation line (14 farms and seven small villages; Tarbikha, Abil al-Qamh, Hunin, al-Malikiyya, al-Nabi Yusha, Qadas and Saliha) shows the land as Syrian. Israel would not return the land to have syria reoccupy it. The issue was a hezbullah battle cry against Israel. Most maps put the land in syria, but a few per-independance show it as Lebanese. There was no out cry by Lebanon when Syria slithered in and occupied it. Now it is a mantra for several groups within Lebanon. No secret that Syria would re-occupy it if Israel did hand it to Lebanon.

 

[SAYIT]

I looked it up before I responded to that post and there are no such words.

You're looking in the wrong places. A legal opinion:

TOSS THE TRAVAUX?
APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION TO THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT-A MODERN (RE)ASSESSMENT
DAVID JOHN BALL
... At the center of the human rights discussion stands the Fourth Geneva Convention, an international agreement codifying certain rules of war designed to protect civilians caught in the midst of conflict.
The bulk of the literature calls for Israel's application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and hones in on methods for Convention enforcement. In this Note, however, David John Ball argues that the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference from the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or the travaux preparatoires, makes clear that the Convention does not apply to nonstates. The Note undertakes a close reading of the travaux and finds that the widely accepted interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention contained in the Pictet Commentary cannot justify its application in the Middle East context. Specifically, the travaux reflects that the drafting states' concerns over sovereign rights following World War II led to a disconnect between the Convention's allegedly humanitarian aim of protecting civilians above all else and its capability to do so in all situations.
Instead, the drafting states neither intended nor created a treaty capable of application to the complex situation existing in the Middle East. The unique history and prolonged occupation of the region, given the statements contained in the travaux, reveals that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the conflict between Israel and the nonstate entity commonly known as "Palestine." This Note concludes that eliminating incorrect assumptions about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is crucial to making progress toward political and legal resolutions to the conflict.

Wow, an opinion of some guy named David John Ball. By all means this singular guy must be right while everyone else is wrong!!

So I offer you a LEGAL opinion in the matter, published in the NYU Law Review, and you come back with ABSOLUTELY NUTTIN'. I'm soooo surprised.

 

[BobbyMac]

You're looking in the wrong places. A legal opinion:

TOSS THE TRAVAUX?
APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION TO THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT-A MODERN (RE)ASSESSMENT
DAVID JOHN BALL
... At the center of the human rights discussion stands the Fourth Geneva Convention, an international agreement codifying certain rules of war designed to protect civilians caught in the midst of conflict.
The bulk of the literature calls for Israel's application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and hones in on methods for Convention enforcement. In this Note, however, David John Ball argues that the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference from the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or the travaux preparatoires, makes clear that the Convention does not apply to nonstates. The Note undertakes a close reading of the travaux and finds that the widely accepted interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention contained in the Pictet Commentary cannot justify its application in the Middle East context. Specifically, the travaux reflects that the drafting states' concerns over sovereign rights following World War II led to a disconnect between the Convention's allegedly humanitarian aim of protecting civilians above all else and its capability to do so in all situations.
Instead, the drafting states neither intended nor created a treaty capable of application to the complex situation existing in the Middle East. The unique history and prolonged occupation of the region, given the statements contained in the travaux, reveals that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the conflict between Israel and the nonstate entity commonly known as "Palestine." This Note concludes that eliminating incorrect assumptions about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is crucial to making progress toward political and legal resolutions to the conflict.

Wow, an opinion of some guy named David John Ball. By all means this singular guy must be right while everyone else is wrong!!

Well, there is an appellate/litigation attorney by that name: he's a partner in a NY law firm David J. Ball, Litigation and Appellate Lawyer, New York Attorney, Bracewell | Bracewell & Giuliani

If it's the same individual, his opinions are based on quite a lot of experience in the legal field.....

And if you search hard enough you will probably find some lawyer that says everything the KKK did was legal.

 

[BobbyMac]

Muslims are still committing ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout the globe. Except in case of Israel, it just won't let them do their Muslim "thing".

Wake up and smell the Jihad.

What part about " some still do" didn't you get?

Let's be honest. The "some" you are talking about are exclusively Muslims. You cannot attribute the same behavior to members of other faiths.

While nowhere near as extreme, the acts if the IRA were for religion, and that ended not that long ago.

 

[BobbyMac]

Israel's retention of land captured in Arab-initiated wars, is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Wake me up when Geneva stops-by to enforce it...

==============================

Maybe, next time, your Arab butt-buddies won't be so gung-ho, to attack Israel?

Going into an area with intent to take and keep it is against the convention, but Israel captures land in a defensive war. Their laws permits them to keep the land.
Israel has taken and returned land to Lebanon several times, it does not want it. Shebaa was taken from Syria not Lebanon. It was take by Syria back int 1949 and mapped as Syrian in the 1949 demarcation line (14 farms and seven small villages; Tarbikha, Abil al-Qamh, Hunin, al-Malikiyya, al-Nabi Yusha, Qadas and Saliha) shows the land as Syrian. Israel would not return the land to have syria reoccupy it. The issue was a hezbullah battle cry against Israel. Most maps put the land in syria, but a few per-independance show it as Lebanese. There was no out cry by Lebanon when Syria slithered in and occupied it. Now it is a mantra for several groups within Lebanon. No secret that Syria would re-occupy it if Israel did hand it to Lebanon.

Please show me where it says in the Geneva Conventions that land taken in a defensive war can be kept. Thanks.

 

[Kondor3]

Please show me where it says in the Geneva Conventions that land taken in a defensive war can be kept. Thanks.

Not necessary.

Doesn't matter.

The Jews are going to keep it, whether you like it or not.

 

[SAYIT]

Wow, an opinion of some guy named David John Ball. By all means this singular guy must be right while everyone else is wrong!!

Well, there is an appellate/litigation attorney by that name: he's a partner in a NY law firm David J. Ball, Litigation and Appellate Lawyer, New York Attorney, Bracewell | Bracewell & Giuliani

If it's the same individual, his opinions are based on quite a lot of experience in the legal field.....

And if you search hard enough you will probably find some lawyer that says everything the KKK did was legal.

But I didn't have to look all that hard while you didn't at all.
BTW, see if you can find a legal opinion which claims "everything the KKK did was legal."

 

[amity1844]

Not necessary.

Doesn't matter.

The Jews are going to keep it, whether you like it or not.
__________________
Amateur de-bunker of partisan hacks

Israel is the most spoiled brat on the entire globe, no doubt. But is it not entirely in control of its own fate. Like I said, it comes down to.... do we want peace or do we want this to go on indefinitely? Has it occured to you that if you let that land go you might very probably get it back someday? Maybe even some day soon!
_____________________
Accomplished de-bunker of partisan hacks