SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7065)10/17/2001 8:07:42 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "International Law does state that no nation has a right to expand its borders through conquest ..."

I know that the international community generally frowns on this, but is there an actual law somewhere which says you can't do this?

When the United States forced Mexico to sell all that land would that be a case of something other than conquest? And Alsace and Lorraine?

I'm curious about this. I don't think that international law had anything to say about conquests by force in the distant past, I'm wondering when the law came into being. And being a law, who enforces it.

-- Carl



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7065)10/18/2001 2:00:57 AM
From: Thomas M.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
forget posting UN resolutions.

Good idea. Let's start there:

U.N. Security Council Resolutions Condemning Zionist Terrorism

1.Resolution No. 57 dated September 18, 1948 in which the Security Council expresses its profound shock at the
assassination of the United Nations mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Berndotte in a cowardly act committed by a
ciminal group of terrorists in Jerusalem.
2.Res. No. 59 dated October 19, 1948 in which the Council expresses its concern over the fact of Israel's not having
submitted a report on the assassination of Count Brandotte, and proclaiming it to be the duty of governments
throughout the world to cooperate with the supervisory body.
3.Res. No. 60 dated October 29, 1948 in which the Council resolves to establish a sub-committee to revise the draft
resolution with regard to the situation in Jerusalem.
4.Res. No. 61 dated November 4, 1948 in which the Council calls for the withdrawal of [Israeli] forces and the
establishment of permanent truce lines.
5.Res. No. 89 dated November 17, 1950 in which the Council calls for action to address complaints regarding
mechanisms for carrying out truce agreements (namely, the complaint filed by Egypt with regard to the expulsion of
Palestinian Arabs).
6.Res. No. 92 dated May 8, 1951 in which the Council asks for a ceasefire in the demilitarized zone along the
Syrian-Israeli truce lines.
7.Res. No. 100 dated October 27, 1953 in which the Council asks Israel to cease water drainage and rerouting
operations in the delimitarized zone from Hawlah.
8.Res. No. 101 dated November 24, 1953 in which the Council condemns the Israel attack on Qubiya of October
14-15, 1953, the Council having found that the retaliatory Israeli action against Qubiya and all similar acts [represent
violations of] the ceasefire agreement issued in Security Council Resolution No. 54 of 1948.
9.Res. No. 106 dated March 29, 1955 in which the Council condemns the Israeli aggression against Gaza on
February 28, 1955, having judged such aggression to be a premeditated attack on the part of Israeli authorities
carried by the Israeli Standing Army against the Egyptian Standing Army in the Gaza strip.
10.Res. No. 111 dated January 19, 1956 in which the Council condemns the Israeli aggression against Syrian territory
on December 11, 1955 (the Lake Tiberius region), the Israeli standing army having carried out an attack on the
Syrian standing army forces on Syrian territory.
11.Res. No. 237 dated June 14, 1967 in which the Council calls upon Israel to respect human rights in the regions
affected by the Middle East conflict of 1967, the Council having taken into consideration the urgent need to relieve
the suffering of civilian inhabitants of the area and of war captives in the areas affected by said conflict.
12.Res. No. 248 dated March 24, 1968 in which the Council condemns the large-scale, premeditated Israeli military
action which had been carried out against Karama, Jordan.
13.Res. No. 256 dated August 16, 1968 in which the Council condemns the Israeli military aggression against Salt,
Jordan involving two heavy air attacks.
14.Res. No. 262 dated December 31, 1968 condemning Israeli aggression against the international, civilian Beirut
airport.
15.Res. No. 265 dated April 1, 1969 condemning deliberate, repeated aggression by Israeli civilians against Jordanian
villages and populated areas (i.e., Salt).
16.Res. No. 270 dated August 26, 1969 condemning deliberate Israeli aggression against south Lebanon, which
represented a violation of Israeli's obligations in accordance with the Security Council charter and resolutions.
17.Res. No. 271 dated September 15, 1969 condemning Israel for its desecration of the Aqsa Mosque (via arson) on
August 21, 1969, and calling for the revocation of all measures capable of changing the situation in Jerusalem.
18.Res. No. 280 dated May 19, 1970 condemning Israel for large-scale, deliberate, carefully planned aggression
against Lebanon.
19.Res. No. 316 dated June 29, 1972 condemning Israeli attacks on Lebanon and demanding the immediate release of
Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel who had been abducted.
20.Res. No. 317 dated July 21 expressing the Council's regret over Israel's failure to repatriate the Syrian and
Lebanese military and security personnel referred to above, and calling upon Israel to repatriate them without further
delay.
21.Res. No. 332 dated April 21, 1973 condemning Israel for its repeated military attacks against Lebanon, and
expressing the Council's regret over all the recent acts of violence which had led to the loss of innocent lives as well
as endangering civilian international aviation.
22.Res. No. 337 dated August 15, 1973 condemning Israel for its violation of Lebanese sovereignty by the aggression
committed by the Israeli air force against Lebanese territorial integrity, as well as by highjacking and detouring a
civilian Lebanese airplane which had been rented to the Iraqi Airlines.
23.Res. No. 452 dated July 20, 1979 asking Israeli Occupation Forces to cease operations involving expansion of
Israeli settlements in occupied Arab lands, including Jerusalem.
24.Res. No. 468 dated May 8, 1980 demanding that Israel (in its capacity as the occupying force) revoke all illegal
measures (vis., deportation) taken against the mayors of the townships of Hebron and Halhoul, and the Shari'a
Magistrate of Hebron.
25.Res. No. 469 dated May 20, 1980 demanding once again that Israel revoke all measures taken agasint the Palestian
leaders mentioned heretofore, and facilitate their immediate repatriation so as to enable them to resume the duties the
fulfillment of which they had been duly elected and appointed.
26.Res. No. 573 dated October 4, 1985 condemning Israel aggression agasint Tunis, which caused heavy losses in
human life in addition to massive material losses, and urging member nations of the United Nation to take measures
to prevent Israel from negaging in similar acts of acctions.
27.Res. No. 592 dated December 8, 1986 condemning the Israeli army's having opened fire, thereby killing and
wounding students at Bir Zeit University.
28.Res. No. 605 dated December 22, 1987 condemning Israeli practices violating human rights of the Palestinian
people in the occupied territories and asking Israel to adhere immediately and precisely to the Geneva accords as
they related to the protection of civilians in time of war.
29.Res. No. 607 dated January 5, 1988 asking that Israel refrain from deporting Palestinian civilians from the occupied
territories.
30.Res. No. 608 dated January 5, 1988 asking Israel to rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and to ensure
the repatriation of those already having been deported.
31.Res. No. 611 dated April 25, 1988 condemning Israeli aggression agasint Tunis on April 16, 1988, aggression
which resulted in human loss of life, and in particular, the death of . . . [khalil al-wazir].
32.Res. No. 636 dated July 6, 1989 asking Israel to ensure the repatriation to the occupied territories of those who had
been deported (eight Palestinian civilians as of June 29, 1989), and to desist from deporting any more Palestinian
civililans.
33.Res. No. 641 dated August 30, 1989 condemning Israel's continued deporation of Palestinian civilians (having
deported five Palestinian civilians on August 27, 1989), and asking Israel to ensure the immediated repatriation of
those thus far deported.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7065)10/18/2001 2:02:06 AM
From: Thomas M.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
At its weekly meeting yesterday, the Israeli cabinet took cognizance of
both Prime Minister Ehud Barak's statement regarding the departure of
the delegation to the negotiations with the Palestinians at Taba and the
Israeli position on three main points. However, all these points
contravene international law and are therefore ink on paper.

The official Israeli cabinet communication stated that "Israel will never
allow the right of Palestinian refugees to return to inside the State of
Israel." However, according to international law, Palestinian and other
refugees are entitled to full restitution, which includes the right of return
of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes of origin, the return of
their property, and the right to compensation for material and
non-material losses.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (December 1948)
states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace
with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest
practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property
of those choosing not to return and for the loss or damage to
property..." This resolution has been reaffirmed one hundred and ten
times by the UN.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states
that "everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his country" and the the
Fourth Geneva Conventions (1949) prohibit "individual or mass forcible
transfers ... regardless of their motive" and calls for evacuated persons
to be "transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area
in question have ceased."

Moreover, UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) upholds "the
inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and
property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls
for their return" and UN General Assembly Resolution 52/62 (1997)
"reaffirms that the Palestine Arab refugees are entitled to their property
and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of
justice and equity."

Additionally, the Israeli communication stated that Israeli PM Barak
would "not sign any document which transfers sovereignty over the
Temple Mount to the Palestinians." That Israel has acquired territorial
sovereignty in those areas is not sustainable in international law.
Conquest, whether aggressive or defensive, does not confer title. Not
only has the international community declined recognition of the title of
Israel to Jerusalem, but they have, more positively, expressly and
repeatedly declined to do so.

Between 1947 and 1996, the UN Security Council issued 21 resolutions
condemning Israeli policies in Jerusalem that violate international
(human rights) law. The General Assembly has also issued similar
resolutions (54 resolutions between 1947 and 1992, excluding those
that were vetoed by the US). These resolutions were issued either
because of Israeli policies and measures on Jerusalem in particular, or
they referred to Jerusalem in the context of the Occupied Territories.

The resolutions emphasize the illegitimacy of Jerusalem's annexation,
based on the illegitimacy of acquiring territory by war. Additionally,
these resolutions regard the city as an integral part of the Occupied
Territories and emphasize the applicability of international humanitarian
law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention. There has been
unheard-of international unanimity over these resolutions.

Finally, the Israeli communication stated that "Israel insists that in any
settlement, 80% of the Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza
will be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty." However, the
establishment of permanent civilian settlements contravenes
international humanitarian law, which prohibits an occupying power from
transferring population from its territory into territory it occupies, and
from performing any act in occupied territory that is not intended to
meet its military needs or benefit the local population.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly provides that, "the
Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies." The commentary of the
International Committee of the Red Cross to this article states that the
article is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second
World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own
population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in
order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.

The declared purpose of the settlers, like that of Israeli governments
that established the settlements, was and continues to be to change
the demographics in the Occupied Territories, a change that was
actually accomplished, at least in those areas in which there is
congested Israeli settlement.

The Israeli government initiated most of the Jewish settlement in the
Occupied Territories. All of the relevant ministries and authorities
assisted by expropriating land, planning, implementing, and financing.
The various Israeli governments encouraged and continue to encourage
Israeli civilians to move to the Occupied Territories by providing benefits,
such as grants and loans under favorable terms.

Even where individual settlers, rather than the government, established
settlements, the government acted retroactively to turn these into
permanent settlements. To achieve this, the government assisted with
planning, infrastructure, establishment of public buildings and
institutions, expropriation of land to expand the settlements, and
encouragement of other Israeli civilians to live there.

Settlements established pursuant to the decision of a government
committee, through governmental planning, implementation, assistance
and encouragement, clearly breach article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention.

A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law relating to
territory subject to belligerent occupation is that occupation is
essentially a temporary situation. The temporary nature of occupation
entails limitations imposed on the occupying power regarding the
creation of permanent facts in the occupied territory.

Article 46 of the Hague Regulations prohibits the confiscation of private
property. Article 52 allows the occupying power to requisition land in
exchange for compensation, but only to meet its military needs.
Requisition of land, contrary to confiscation, is temporary by definition,
and the occupying power does not obtain ownership. Article 55 of the
Hague Regulations stipulates that the occupying state is regarded only
as trustee of public property in the area, and does not obtain ownership
of the property.

Since the military commander is not the sovereign in the territory and
his administration there is only temporary, he may exercise only two
considerations when making decisions concerning the occupied
territory: the welfare of the local population and his security needs.
Thus, the occupying state may only institute permanent changes where
they are intended for the local population.

Since it has never been contended that the settlements were
established to benefit the Palestinian residents of the Occupied
Territories, the legal justification for their establishment must be that
they were temporary actions intended for security needs. Since this is
clearly not the case, in establishing the settlements, Israel is violating a
fundamental principle of international humanitarian law.

mediamonitors.net