Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: L'ONU condanna israele per l'ennesima volta...

Quello che non capisco(si fa per dire) e' perche si limitano a
condannarli?... Perche' non applicano le sanzioni come le avrebbero e le
hanno applicate ad altri Stati?
Per quanto tempo il governo israeliano potra' continuare a fare i suoi porci
comodi?
E soprattutto chi sara' in grado di fermarli?
---------------
Annan strongly condemns latest incursion into Gaza refugee camp
Kofi Annan
23 December - United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today strongly
condemned the latest military incursion in the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza,
which left at least eight Palestinians, many of them civilians, dead.
"The Secretary-General reiterates that Israel, as the occupying power, must
protect the civilian population and desist from using disproportionate
force," a spokesman for Mr. Annan said in a statement, which noted that
dozens more, including many children, were wounded and several houses
destroyed.
"He strongly urges the Government of Israel to refrain from such violent
actions and return to peaceful negotiations with its Palestinian partners
according to the Quartet's Road Map," the statement added, referring to a
peace plan sponsored by the UN, European Union, Russian Federation and the
United States that calls for a series of parallel and reciprocal steps
leading to two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace by
2005.
Through his spokesman, the Secretary-General also sent his condolences to
the families of the victims.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=9306
K

camp in Gaza,
Annan non e' l'ONU.
-Stefano

 -Stefano
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

Studio per tua sfortuna diritto internazionale, quindi attento!
Brrr.... :)
Allora potrai citare tutte le regole del diritto internazionale che
Israele sta violando :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
ma vai a cagare imbecille
CDG


 ma vai a cagare imbecille
...disse il bue all'asino...
-Stefano

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3FED45F8...@interfree.it...
[cut]
Appendo qui, alle consuete, noioisissime e ripetitive (la vecchiaia avanza,
eh, DeCe'?) scemenze di SdC, un'interessante analisi legale dello status dei
TO. Si tratta del IV capitolo dello studio "The Israeli Policy of Closure.
Legal, Political and Humanitarian Evaluation", curato dal "Palestinian
Centre for Human Rights" (Affiliate of : International Commission of
Jurists - Geneva), e disponibile presso
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/S&r/English/study6/The%20Israeli%20Policy%20of
%20Closur1.html . Shalom.
Namib
---------------------------
LEGAL ANALYSIS
This chapter provides a legal analysis of Israel's closure policy. It is
argued that the 1949 IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War remains applicable; that Israel, as the
Occupying Power, continues to be bound by it; and that the Palestinian
civilian population continues to be entitled to the benefits conferred by
it, and that the severe closures such as those imposed in 1996 are
unlawful.95
The system of international law in place in the Occupied Territories include
inter alia: the IV Geneva Convention, human rights law (the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 Intemational Covenants on Civil and
Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), and the Interim
Agreements.
Although it is a significant omission that recognition was not given in the
Interim Agreements, nor explicitly by the international community, to Israel
's continuing de jure occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East
Jerusalem and the continuing applicability of the IV Geneva Convention; it
is argued that notwithstanding the status of the territory the Palestinian
people are inherently entitled to minimum standards of treatment and
guarantees of their fundamental rights, in accordance with
internationally-accepted norms of human rights law.
i Legal Status of the Occupied Territories
Since the beginning of its occupation in 1967 of the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank including East Jerusalem, Israel has been recognised by the
international community as the belligerent occupant and these areas as
occupied territories. Further, the international community recognises the
applicability of the IV Geneva Convention and has persistently demanded that
Israel comply with the Convention, to which it is a Party, in respect of the
occupied population. 96 This position has been repeated regularly by the
international community, including the Government of the United States, and
various specialised humanitarian agencies, particularly the International
Committee of the Red Cross.
Successive Israeli Governments have however consistently rejected both this
consensus of the international community and the de jure applicability of
the IV Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories on the basis of the
following:
    a. The Gaza Strip was under Egyptian Administration when Israel occupied
it in 1967.
    Israel argues that Egypt was not the sovereign, legitimate government of
the Gaza Strip, and that its presence was not that of a belligerent
occupant, but of an administrator of the territory. As its successor, Israel
argues that it possesses only the administrative responsibilities that Egypt
formerly held, and that therefore the IV Geneva Convention does not apply.
Israel bases this assertion on a restrictive reading of Article 2 of the
Geneva Convention, which determines its application, providing that "the
present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other
armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting
Parties". Pictet's authoritative Commentary on IV Geneva Convention97
explains that the aim of Article 2 is to ensure that "the temporary
disappearance of sovereign States as a result of annexation or capitulation
[is not] put forward as a pretext for not observing... the humanitarian
Conventions".98
Thus the applicability of the IV Geneva Convention does not depend upon the
preceding government of a territory being its sovereign or legitimate
government Article 2 of the Convention renders it applicable in all
situations of belligerent occupation, regardless of the nature of the
government prior to the occupation, the time period it was in power, or the
conditions in which the occupation came about. The temporary nature of both
administration and occupation of territories militate against succession of
the rights or status of an occupying or administrating entity.
    b. Israel argues that its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
is sui generis since it did not gain control of these territories in an
aggressive war, but as a result of defensive actions, and therefore it Is
not subject to Occupiers Law.
    There is nothing in international law which distinguishes between
defensive or aggressive actions in respect of a consequential occupation of
territory. The IV Geneva Convention specifically provides in the second
paragraph of Article 2 that: " The Convention shall also apply to all cases
of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party,
even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."
    Article 6 of the Convention defines the beginning and end of its
application. Paragraph one of which provides that the Convention applies
"from the outset of any conflict". Pictet elucidates that this means that
the Convention should be applied from the moment that foreign troops are in
the territory and come into contact with the civilian population, and even
when an occupation comes about without any resistance." It would follow
therefore that the Convention applies notwithstanding Israel's argument that
it came about as a result of defensive force.
    The essence of the Convention is to protect the civilian inhabitants of
territory which comes under foreign or enemy control. It does not concern
itself with the nature of the force which brought about the occupation. Thus
there is nothing in the provisions of the Convention which distinguish
between occupation of territory which comes about through defensive or
aggressive actions.
It is apparent that Israel is bound by the IV Geneva Convention. This has
strong support from the following: the provisions of the Convention itself
and Pictet's Commentary; the consensus of the international community; the
lack of international legal norms to the contrary; the fact that Israel is
the de facto OP in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem; and the
fact that these territories have not surrendered, nor has an agreement been
reached which hands over sovereignty to Israel.
Notwithstanding Israel's arguments against the de jute application of the IV
Geneva Convention, the Israeli Government took the decision to de facto
apply the "humanitarian" provisions of the Convention. However the Israeli
Government has not defined the provisions of the IV Geneva Convention which
it considers to be humanitarian and therefore applicable. The UN Security
Council adopted Decision No. 681 on 20th December 1990, which affirms the
applicability of the IV Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories and
demands that Israel, as the OP, applies the Convention de jure in respect of
the territories which it de facto occupies. The Decision requests High
Contracting Parties to the IV Geneva Convention to fulfil their obligations
under Article I therein.
ii. Legal Status During the Interim Period
On 13th September 1993, the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles on
behalf of the Palestinian people, with the Government of Israel. This was
followed by the signing of two further agreements between the two parties in
1994 the Cairo - Interim Agreement on the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and in
1995 the Taba - Interim Agreement on the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The
signing of these Agreements brought about a temporary sui generis situation
in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, which raised issues in
relation to the continued application of the provisions of the IV Geneva
Convention. These issues relate to the international obligations of Israel
and the PNA, and in regard to the guarantees to which the Palestinian
civilian inhabitants of these areas are entitled under international law. In
consideration of these legal elements it must be emphasised that the
situation created by the signing of the Interim Agreements is temporary.
The Cairo Agreement established the PNA and transferred to it limited
autonomy in Jericho and most of the Gaza Strip.99 These responsibilities are
essentially in the sphere of internal civil affairs, and eresponsibility in
respect of overall security and foreign relations. The Taba Agreement
scheduled the geographical extension of the responsibilities of the PNA to
several towns and their surrounding villages in the West Bank.100
It appears that the IV Geneva Convention remains applicable during the
Interim Period, and Israel, as the de facto Occupying Power, remains subject
to its provisions, and the civilian Palestinian population is entitled to
the protection of its guarantees. This is because, notwithstanding that the
Interim Agreements brought an end to the obvious signs of an Israeli
military presence in the populous areas of the Gaza Strip and inside towns
and villages of the West Bank, Israel's occupation of these areas remains
both a legal and physical reality.
The Interim Agreements transformed the West Bank into what is effectively a
small collection of Palestinian cantons, each surrounded by Israeli
occupying forces which control their borders. Within the Gaza Strip, Israel
maintains military positions around the Israeli settlements where there have
been many incidents in which Palestinians have been assaulted and harassed
by these soldiers.101 Some areas, such as the Kfar Darom Settlement, are
situated immediately next to Palestinian villages.
The extent to which Israel remains in overall control of the Gaza Strip,
West Bank and East Jerusalem is illustrated to some extent through its
ability to impose closures as it has done since re-deployment. Palestinians
still depend upon the goodwill and cooperation of Israel for basic
necessities such as food and medical supplies and in order to exercise basic
freedoms such as the freedom of movement, to found a family and the exercise
of religious rights; the need for the basic guarantees and protection of the
provisions of the IV Geneva Convention remains great.
iii Continuing Application of the Geneva Convention During the Interim
Period
The application of the IV Geneva Convention continues notwithstanding the
existence of the Interim Agreements. It will remain applicable until a
comparable or higher standard of protection can be guaranteed by one of the
following events: an agreement comes into force containing such guarantees,
an agreement is reached which effectively ends the occupation and puts in
place a system of national civil government; or the population
surrenders.102
Geneva Law seeks firstly to insulate the application of the Convention from
political events, for example by declaring inadmissible any special
agreement between the OP and the occupied entity which diminishes the rights
provided in the Convention;103 secondly it limits the activities of the
Occupying Power in occupied territory (Occupiers Law); thirdly it seeks to
protect the human rights of the occupied civilian population, and gives it
predominance over the rights of the OP (Humanitarian Law).
Substantial issues in the Interim Agreements underpin the continuation of
Israel's occupation and the status of the Gaza Strip, West Bank including
East Jerusalem as occupied territories. Firstly the peace process is ongoing
and there are several essential issues left unresolved which have been left
for negotiation at the Final Status Negotiations. These issues include
"Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations
and cooperation with other neighbours and other issues of common interest"
.104 Until these essential issues are resolved, and moreover, until the
Palestinian people have obtained political and territorial independence and
are free of Israel's military control, then Israel's occupation and its
responsibilities under Geneva Law will not end.
Two further factors necessitate the continuing application of the IV Geneva
Convention. The Interim Agreements maintain Israel's Military Government,
which facilitates the continuation of the military orders, and the military
courts. In addition, the development and maintenance by Israel of its
illegal settlements inside the Gaza Strip and West Bank and surrounding East
Jerusalem continues.
Application of the Convention
Articles 6, 7, 8 and 47 of the Convention ensure its application
notwithstanding political events. Article 6, paragraph three of the
Convention is clear that the application of the Convention only begins to
come to an end when there is an end to military operations.105
The continuing protection of the Geneva Convention during the Interim Period
is augmented in Article 7, which states that although HCP's are free to
conclude special agreements, "No special agreement shall adversely affect
the situation of protected persons, as defined by the present Convention,
nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them." This is the case except
where "express provisions to the contrary are contained [in the special
agreement] ... or where snore favourable measures have been taken". This
protection is reinforced in Article 47, which states that "Protected persons
who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived in any case, or in any
manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change
introduced ... into the institutions or the government of the ... territory,
nor by any agreement comcluded between the authorities of the occupied
territories and the Occupying Power"
There is not only a de facto Israeli military presence remaining inside the
West Bank, but in addition the Interim Agreements recognise the de jure
maintenance of Israel's military government of the Occupied Territories.106
Occupiers Law
Geneva Law seeks to limit the status of the Occupying Power to nothing more
than the trustee or usufructory of the territory it occupies; the occupying
authority is de facto merely considered to be the administrator and is de
jure restricted to imposing its authority only to the extent necessary for
maintaining l'ordre et la vie publics, i.e. for the general benefit of the
occupied civilian population, except where a measure is necessary to ensure
the security of the occupation107. The occupant is also forbidden from
taking any measures which alter the status or title of the territory.108'
Indeed, it must not be altered either until complete surrender by the
indigenous population, or until the coming into force of a peace agreement.
The OP is above all under an obligation to maintain the welfare of the
civilian occupied population, and to respect and guarantee their fundamental
human rights.
OP may apply security measures and measures of constraint that are necessary
to maintain its occupation but these are strictly limited, can only be taken
in extreme circumstances and Pictet comments that this reservation does not
in any way undermine the absolute nature of the fundamental rights of the
protected civilian population.109
Legislation
Article 64 of the IV Geneva Convention seeks to limit the extent of the
powers of the OP by proscribing changes to the penal and civil laws in place
in the territory under occupation, unless they constitute a threat to its
security or an obstacle to the application of the Convention. Pictet
comments that these reservations are of a strictly limitative nature. The
overriding obligation of the Occupying Power is to preserve the laws in
force in the Occupied Territories "unless absolutely prevented".110
Paragraph 2 of Article 64 limits the legislative powers of the OP to an
exhaustive list which includes: a) the application of the Convention in
respect of child welfare, labour, food, hygiene and public health, b) those
necessary to maintain "the orderly government of the territory" in its
capacity as the Power responsible for public law and order; and c) the
promulgation of penal provisions for its own protection.111
The OP can enact orders only in extraordinary situations to "protect" the
security of its forces and it must otherwise maintain and respect the laws
in force. Pictet comments that the powers of the occupier are delimited by
the temporary nature of its control; it must not promulgate laws which are
in violation of the Convention's provisions and must not "under any
circumstances serve as a means of oppressing the pop."112
When the Israeli occupation began, its military authorities took control of
the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip through a catalogue of
military orders which pervaded all levels of Palestinian society. The extent
to which these orders infringe the rights of the population, some
individually and collectively, exceed the limitations set by the IV Geneva
Convention. They interfere with and control details of Palestinian life
which are not related to the security of Israel's occupation forces; these
include for example, water usage, land usage (Israel has confiscated much
Palestinian land from inside the Gaza Strip for the establishment of
settlements, which are illegal under international
law), and collective measures, many of which are excessive.

 Namib
[cut]
un buon esempio di una bella figura di merda del nostro pseudo-sapientone!


occupation and its responsibilities under Geneva Law will not end.
Opinione personale che vale tanto quanto quella israeliana, visto che
non e' suffragata da nulla.
-Stefano

pseudo-sapientone!
...disse il bue all'asino...
-Stefano

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:bsi7m2$d63f6$1...@ID-186319.news.uni-berlin.de...



Non ci fare caso,
sono qui per un preciso intento: fare apparire Israele come vittima.
Si chiama strategia della disinformazione
ce ne sono un paio in ogni Ng di ogni nazione.
sono furbi questi .....................

parte dell'Europa o dell'Onu contro israele.
Nei tuoi sogni probabilmente.
-Stefano

 Si chiama strategia della disinformazione
...disse il bue all'asino...
-Stefano