"Nor is occupying another people is a crime against humanity, Israel’s occupation of disputed territory in the West Bank is a legal occupation."mondonut
The hell you say.I hope you are well paid for making a fool of yourself.
"Is Gaza still occupied?
Yes. According to international law Gaza is still occupied even though Israeli forces pulled out in 2005. This is the case for three reasons:
1. Because the Oslo accords specifically affirmed that the Palestinian Territories would remain under Israeli occupation until the implementation of a final peace treaty.
The Gaza Strip and the West Bank will continue to be considered one territorial unit, and that withdrawal from Palestinian population centres will do nothing "to change the status" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the duration of the accords.
Israeli soldiers are still able to enter
the Gaza Strip at will [AP]
2. Gazans are still subject to the control of the Israeli military which retains the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip at will.
Furthermore, Israel retains control over all of Gaza's public utilities, airspace, sea shore, and borders, including Gaza's border with Egypt.
It is Israel that both sets and collects Gaza's taxes and customs and controls its population registry.
It controls Gaza's international relations, whether or not they can open a seaport or an airport, and continues its military activity along the Gaza Strip's coastline.
Taken together, these powers mean that all goods, services and people entering or leaving Gaza are subject to Israeli control.
3. Because the conditions which constitute the end of an occupation have been defined in international law and in Gaza's case those conditions have not been met.
"Forty years and yet no solution to an occupation"
Saeb Erekat, Senior Palestinian negotiator
Send us your views
The Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations' basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.
It held that "the test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."
In that case, the tribunal had to decide whether Germany's occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories.
Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the "occupying power" - both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the Territories to which it had ceded control - since it could have re-entered and controlled those territories at will.
Is ongoing, open-ended occupation legal?
Settlements in East Jerusalem
are set to be expanded [EPA]
No. Under international law the occupier is obligated to end the occupation as quickly as possible.
The occupier has to safeguard the rights of the occupied population during the temporary period in which the occupation is maintained.
Continuing an occupation is illegal because the occupier cannot usurp by force the rights of the occupied people, who retain title to their land and resources by virtue of the fundamental right to self-determination.
UN Resolution 242 of 1967, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during the 1967 June War, is based on the principle of what it calls the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
Can the occupier settle on the occupied land?
Click here for more video and eyewitness reports
No. Any move by the occupier to infringe of the rights of the occupied or change the status of the occupied land through, for example, annexation, confiscation of resources, population transfer, or destruction of civilian property is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory.
Expropriating the property of an occupied people is also forbidden by the Hague Regulations.
This means all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are illegal.
All house demolitions or forced relocations in these areas are illegal.
Is violent resistance against an occupation legal?
Yes. People have a right to resist "colonial domination and alien occupation and racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the UN" and/or to resist illegal practices of the occupier according to Article 1(4) of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions.
Territories before the 1967 war
Palestinians fighting Israel to achieve self-determination have the legal status of combatants as defined by the UN General Assembly in 1973.
The Palestinians' struggle is considered legitimate and in full accord with the principles of international law.
Any attempt to suppress a struggle against a colonial or racist regime or alien occupation is incompatible with the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and constitutes in itself a threat to peace and security.
Is it legal to target Israeli civilians?
No. International humanitarian law prohibits attacks on civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities.
Parties to a conflict are obliged to distinguish between civilian and military infrastructure, to respect the principle of proportionality in all military operations and to refrain from any form of collective punishment against a population.
That means there is no protection under international law for launching Qassam rockets on Israeli population centres.
Under international law, this is not protected or justified.
Are Israeli air strikes or targeted assassinations legal?
No. For various reasons, international law tends to support the conclusion that Israeli air strikes and targeted assassinations are illegal.
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a former Hamas leader,
is among those assassinated by Israel [AP]
From a legal standpoint, there are three critical issues that determine the legality of these policies: the law of self-defence; international humanitarian law; and the principle of proportionality.
1. Self-defence. Defenders of these Israeli practices cite Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
However, Article 51 is in reference to self-defence from an armed attack by a state.
Hamas, Palestine, etc are not a state, they are an occupied people, so Article 51 does not exactly apply and Israel is left with the option of dealing with Palestinian attacks as a law enforcement problem.
In this case, Article 51 is inapplicable which makes the targeted killings "unlawful reprisals" or "extrajudicial acts of homicide", both of which are prohibited by international law.
2. International humanitarian law. Many international law experts agree the Israeli Palestinian conflict is an "armed conflict" to which the laws of war apply.
Most of these experts agree that Palestinians fighters who belong to a force are "combatants" -they have a command structure, wear fixed distinctive signs and carry their weapons openly, they deserve POW status if captured and are immune from prosecution for fighting.
However, Israel does not deal with enemy Palestinian combatants as soldiers, nor does it deal with them exclusively as civilians/criminal gangs.
Israel occupied swathes of territory in
the wake of its 1967 military victory
Israel blurs the line between policing and waging war, by treating the Palestinians as combatants by targeting and killing them during fighting, then treating them like civilians/criminals and punishing them for their acts afterwards.
This means Palestinians fighting for self determination have neither the rights of soldiers, nor the rights of civilians.
If Palestinian fighters are "combatants" then they have the rights of soldiers including POW status.
If Palestinian fighters are criminals then they are civilians and killing them without a court trial is completely illegal.
The Geneva Conventions on the Law of War, particularly common Article 3, prohibit the intentional killing of civilians.
Common Article 3 prohibits: "(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;" and "(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples."
Other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, state that arbitrary execution is unlawful.
3. Proportionality. Any given action by a state must be substantially proportional to the given threat or wrong.
This principle also finds support in the Hague Regulations of 1907 which prohibit the use of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
One could argue that because Israel's policy of targeted killing has resulted in the deaths of multiple civilians, and because they are the occupying power and have the far less violent option of simply arresting the offending individuals, an air raid on a population centre is always disproportionate.
SOURCE: Al Jazeera
Yeah we know mondonut , it,s AJ but don,t kill the messenger, check the message.
"Israel is not “occupying holding 4-5m Palestinians” as Gaza is not occupied." mondonut
The hell you say.
"The UN has repeatedly affirmed in various fora that the Gaza Strip remains under Israeli occupation. For example, UN Security Council Resolution 1860, adopted 14–0 on January 8, 2009 — the U.S. abstained — stressed “that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state.”
In 2011, meanwhile, UN General Assembly Resolution 65/179 emphasised “the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” — i.e. including Gaza. In 2012, the UN Secretary-General’s spokesperson affirmed that the body would “continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view on the matter.”
In November 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague expressed agreement with “the prevalent view within the international community” that “Israel remains an occupying power under international law, based on the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement.”
The reason this is important, why this book begins with this particular question, is because Israel and its supporters seek to contest or deny the Gaza Strip’s occupied status. They do so for propaganda purposes (see Question 2), but more disturbingly, in order to relieve Israel of its responsibilities as an occupying power, particularly in the context of the use of military force.
 The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), http://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/gaza-strip(last accessed 1/6/15).
 UNICEF, http://www.unicef.org/oPt/overview.html (last accessed 1/6/15).
 B’Tselem, ‘The scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip’,http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/gaza_status (last accessed 5/1/16).
 Lisa Hajjar, ‘Is Gaza Still Occupied and Why Does It Matter?’, Jadaliyya,http://www.jadaliyya.com/…/is-gaza-still-occupied-and-why-d… (last accessed 5/1/16).
 Adalah, ‘The Truth About Gaza’, November 2012, http://www.adalah.org/…/Adalah-Truth-about-Gaza-November-20… (last accessed 5/1/16).
 UN press release, January 8, 2009,http://www.un.org/press/en/2009/sc9567.doc.htm (last accessed 3/6/15).
 Resolution text available here: https://unispal.un.org/…/…/3f8f382bf9874a50852578770064392b… (last accessed 5/1/16).
 Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/db120119.doc.htm (last accessed 3/6/15).
 Office of the Prosecutor — ICC — 6 November, 2014, http://opiniojuris.org/…/2014-11-03-Final-Report-on-Situati… (last accessed 3/6/15).
Duhbaker , dont be absurd.
Below is an article by camera accusing the Irish Times of being anti Israel and not fair and balanced.
The Irish times allows an illegal squatter --one ,Mark Weiss carte blanche space to deliver the news from Israel.CAMERA derides all of the other IT reporters because they do not tow / toe , the Israeli line but praise Mark Weiss and refer to him as Fair and balanced.
He has never once referred to the Settlements as Illegal or mentioned Israel,s contravention of Intl Law.
CAMERA is not interested in Facts other than Israeli versions.
I dare say Mr Weiss has his instructions from the GOI and the truth is , they were knocking an open door in giving him instructions.
How many Israeli Newspapers are fair and balanced --ie, Y,Net/J,Post,and the right wing rag financed by Sheldon Adelson who distributes it for free.
Put down the shovel son , before the hole falls in on your head .