Human Rights Watch to Israel: Stop Shooting at Gaza Civilians

[nirreich]

For a thousand time, ALL of what I mentioned is International Law...and are based on International Law. Let me explain your confusion:

Israel is a party to fourth Geneva Convention, right? Under fourth Geneva convention, transferring your civilian population to an occupied territory is a war crime and a violation of the International law.

Now does Israel do that or not?

The International Court of Justice declare in its advisory statement that yes, Israel IS a criminal in the light of International Law and that Israel DOES occupy Palestinian territory. This is a fact. On the basis of this, ICJ declared the wall 'illegal'

Now, the only reason you don't see any UNSC resolution is not because Israel doesn't violate International Law...it is because whenever the resolution comes, U.S vetos it and saves Israeli ***.

It still doesn't mean that Israel isn't a colonial power. Israel is a colonial power colonizing Palestinians. It just gets away with it because of the U.S



Palestinians aren't bent on destroying Israel. That is just a propaganda of Israel to distract the world from its occupation. It is kinda like British saying "Well, We had to colonize India because Indians wanted to destroy us" ..lol

Palestinians, both Hamas and P.A, have said it again and again--that if Israel withdraws to 67' border..and let Palestinians have a state based on 1967 border (As the International community and U.N recommends), then Palestinians will accept Israel as a sovereign nation state too.

Guess what? It is Israel who doesn't go towards that path..and continues to colonize Palestinians by building more and more illegal settlements.

It seems that you have a confusion about the nature of international law which is much more subtle than other legal systems.

Israel signed on the Geneva Convention which does not forbid new settlements in seized areas in wartime situation, and I quote (article 49): “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, i.e. transferring population by force. Israeli citizens living in territories which were seized after the 1967 War went their by their own free will.

Anyway, the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to occupied territories. Jordan's and Egypt's control on Gaze and the West Bank were never internationally recognised, so they cannot be considered as occupied territories which should be returned to these countries. Gaza and the West Bank are territories under dispute which their final status should be determined.

The same reasoning applies to the ICJ in his capacity as advisory board: Its ruling are not biding and Israel is not obliged to consider them, just like UNGA resolutions which have only declarative weight.

What you fail to realise is that international law is about politics and not justice like the nature of the institutions which creates it. Thus, without a biding resolution such as of the UNSC or a clause in a treaty Israel signed it is futile to debate about it. If the Palestinians genuinely aspire to live in peace with Israel in their own state they should stop with their delay tactics in the UN and seriously negotiate with Israel on an agreement.

This brings me to your second argument. If the PA just want an independent state in the West Bank ask yourself why it refused to jump on the opportunity in past negotiations with Israel when the latter offered the Palestinians a free state on around 90% of the Wast Bank (including territorial swaps) and East Jerusalem. Mmmm... Perhaps there is something else???