Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: L' "aiuto" di Israele alla pace : Nuovi insediamenti a Gerusalemme Est

Nuovi insediamenti a Gerusalemme Est
l ministero israeliano per l'Edilizia ha annunciato una gara d'appalto
per la costruzione di nuove 44 unità abitative nell'insediamento di
Maleh Adumim, a ridosso di Gerusalemme est, secondo quanto ha
confermato un portavoce. Maleh Adumim è uno dei grandi blocchi
d'insediamenti che Israele intende mantenere sotto il suo controllo
nell'ambito di un futuro accordo di pace con i palestinesi.
Il relativo bando è stato pubblicato su tutti i giornali locali:
un'iniziativa che è apparsa obiettivamente intempestiva, proprio nel
momento in cui Rice stava premendo su Olmert per il rilancio del
processo negoziale con i palestinesi. «Bisogna applicare la roadmap»,
aveva ribadito il capo della diplomazia Usa in un'intervista rilasciata
alla televisione pubblica di Tel Aviv. Si tratta del piano di pace
messo a punto dal cosiddetto Quartetto di Madrid, che non solo
contempla espressamente la creazione di uno Stato indipendente
palestinese, ma vieta anche la fondazione di ulteriori insediamenti nei
territori autonomi, e congela quelli già esistenti, proibendone
l'espansione. Un imperativo che gli appalti testè promossi violano in
maniera diretta.
«I tempi dell'annuncio »più di ogni altra cosa dimostrano la
serietà del governo israeliano nel voler raggiungere la pace con i
palestinesi», ha commentato ironicamente Dror Etkes,
dell'organizzazione israeliana Peace Now, contattato dall'agenzia
stampa tedesca Dpa. «Israele continua a disegnare unilateralmente una
realtà inaccettabile per i palestinesi» per predeterminare i
risultati dei negoziati sullo status finale, ha aggiunto.
La risoluzione dell'Onu 242 impone allo Stato di Israele di lasciare ai
palestinesi Gerusalemme est.

 Nuovi insediamenti a Gerusalemme Est
Chissà perché quei "terroristi" di Hamas non vogliono riconoscere
Israele prima che questo riconosca il loro diritto ad uno stato
palestinese..
L'ho detto e lo ripeto: il Sionismo ha costruito Israele; il Sionismo
distruggerà Israele.  
Sembra una specie di maledizione biblica.

 Chissà perché quei "terroristi" di Hamas
Mi porrei prima un altro quesito.
Perché chiamare "nuovo insediamento" Ma'ale Adumim, cioè uno dei grandi 
insediamenti di cui nessun accordo ha mai messo in dubbio l'assegnazione a Israele?
La lobby anticonformista al lavoro? Tin Foil hat per tutti?
Tb
-- 
[Tb] :
Il dovere di un comunista sarebbe quello di formare un cordone sanitario
attorno alla feccia nazi
[.sergio.]
No [...] se posta articoli che condivido      |     
http://snipurl.com/11s9a
--------------------------------------------------
Il mio blog: 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

di cui nessun accordo ha mai messo in dubbio l'assegnazione a Israele?
ROTFL!
GT

 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1129/p06s02-wome.html?s=widep
illegale per la Convenzione di Ginevra? e ai neonazisti alla tonibaruch
cosa importa?

 Certamente non e' nuovo
Grazie, GT.
Hai delle carte per mostrare che è "nuovamente esteso"?


 illegale per la Convenzione di Ginevra?
Buona lettura a tutti e due.
http://www.bjeny.org/254.htm


 Buona 
irrilevante

 irrilevante
Dimenticavo che sei un illetterato.
Suca, allora.


 Suca, allora.
disse il letterato. ROTFL!!!!!!!
-- 
Qultura politica di Tonibaruch su It.Politica.Internazionale :
"Oltre al cumswapping e al cumdodging, fai anche il creampie, 
porno-razzi-catto-somarello?" 
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/msg/1db9ef6abb0f7604?dmode=source&hl=it
Tonibaruch: "Chomsky... uno svitato filonazista"
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/msg/4fcafdb551331642?dmode=source&hl=3Dit
 
Tonibaruch: "Hai per caso uno sfogo purulento tutto capillari e siero
presso il buco del culo e il cazzo di coniglio tutto raggrinzito e a
chiazze che ti macchia le mutande e la braghetta?"
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/msg/1f324d4f5a1c4d94?dmode=source&hl=it
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 disse il lett
Non sforzarti sergetto. Lo sai cosa devi fare, invece.


distruggerà Israele.
Certo, certo....
*pat pat*
-Stefano


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1129/p06s02-wome.html?s=widep
"They've put a stain on us," says Maaleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel,
who dismisses the Peace Now report and insists that only a few small
islands of Palestinian real estate lie within the settlement - and have
been left untouched.
Eh... Si. :)   Proprio "su terra confiscata" :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 Sembra una specie di maledizione biblica.
Questo genere di maledizioni di solito si chiamano...
Mannò, lo sai.


 
http://www.bjeny.org/254.htm
E' una completa idiozia, come ho gia' dimostrato piu' di una volta.
I territori occupati sono sottoposti alla convenzione di Ginevra, come
dimostrato sotto senza ombra di dubbio.   E qualsiasi trasferimento
stabile della popolazione occupante su queste ultime, prima della fine
dell'occupazione, e' esplicitamente proibito.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310120332/http://www.eccmei.net/E/E00.
..
On the Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention
John Sigler, December 20, 2000
In that the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1 to Palestine has
been repeatedly affirmed by the United Nations Security Council, 2 the
General Assembly, 3 and all other relevant international bodies, this
essay is largely redundant. Nevertheless, violations of defined grave
breaches of the Fourth Convention have been recognized as criminal
offenses prosecutable under national and international law 4 and
therefore the question of applicability is an important one. Granting
the world community?s consensus regarding the applicability of the
Convention, an examination of Israel?s arguments against its
applicability is still justified in order to lay to rest any pretense
that the Convention is being unjustly utilized against Israel. It is
important to note that none of these arguments on the part of Israel
and its defenders carry any currency in the world community and even
the United States, Israel?s most determined ally, refuses to accept
their legitmacy.
The Sovereignty Defense
Israel?s primary, and most consistent, argument against the
applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied
Territories has been based upon its interpretation of the
Convention?s second Article:
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime,
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, even if the state of war is not recognized by
one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total
occupation of the territories of a High Contracting Party, even if the
said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
and applies the provisions thereof."
Israel interprets this article to mean that the Convention is only
applicable in cases where a legitimate sovereign is evicted from the
territory in question. This argument claims that the Convention is not
applicable based upon the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan were
recognized as legitimate sovereigns of the Gaza Strip and West Bank
respectively.5
While the issue of sovereignty is discussed in detail elsewhere, in
relation to Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the actual
sovereignty of the territories becomes immaterial in that Article 2 is
applicable to ??any other armed conflict which may arise between
two or more of the High Contracting Parties??which would include
both Jordan and Egypt.6 The Convention states clearly that it is
applicable to ?cases?of armed conflict? and makes no distinction
regarding the status of the territory in question. By no means can it
be denied that the Israeli conquest of the Occupied Territories was the
direct result of just such a "armed conflict" between High Contracting
Parties to the Convention.
Other lesser arguments
Although the question of the sovereignty of the Occupied Territories
has been Israel?s principle argument for the inapplicability of the
Fourth Geneva Convention, other arguments have been presented although
they have no legal bearing. Some of these arguments have been openly
endorsed and supported by the Israeli government while others have been
used without sanction by unofficial defenders of Israel.
The first of these arguments is Israel?s ?voluntary? application
of the ?humanitarian? provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Obviously the primary problem with this notion is that the entire
Convention is recognized as a humanitarian document, and any portion
carried out is simply a part of Israel?s legal responsibility as a
High Contracting Party to it. Those using this argument present
Israel?s partial compliance as a voluntary gesture attesting to
Israel?s 'respect' for humanitarian principles; completely
disregarding the simple fact that as a High Contracting Party to the
Convention it is obligated to implement the entire document, not merely
those portions it is so inclined at any given moment. That Israel has
complied with portions of its responsibilities in no way undermines or
diminishes the fact that Israel has also refused to abide by its legal
obligation to comply with the rest of the Convention.
Another similar defense taken on occasion regards the purely
?defensive? nature of the 1967 war, which is somehow used as a
means of disclaiming the ?Occupied? status of the Territories, and
hence the validity of the Convention. The issue of whether the 1967 war
was ?defensive? or not is far from conclusive, but that
notwithstanding, it is also completely immaterial in relation to the
Convention?s applicability. Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
makes no distinction between aggressor and defender, but applies
equally to all participants in cases of ?declared war? and/or
?armed conflict? involving at least one High Contracting Party.
It has also been argued, especially in regard to the settlements, that
due to historical Jewish ties to the Territories that they have a
legitimate right to them, and therefore the ?Occupation of the West
Bank? actually constitutes a ?Liberation of Judea and Samaria?.
In using this irredentist argument, the Convention becomes inapplicable
since the territories in question are allegedly Israeli in the first
place. However, this argument has absolutely no legal bearing
whatsoever and constitutes nothing more than a ?Greater State?
argument akin to similar expansionistic nationalist expressions in
other states.
It should be noted that the Israeli government has afforded the
irredentist case a degree of merit by using the historical Jewish links
to the Territories as a justification for settlements.7 The Israeli
government cites the ancient Jewish communities of al-Khalil (Hebron)
and the settlements established under the Mandate as precedent and
justification for the widespread colonization of the Occupied
Territories that has occurred since their conquest in 1967. However,
the world community flatly rejects these notions of Israeli
expansionism and they have no bearing under international law.
Another significant argument that has been presented by the Israeli
government since the creation of the Palestine Authority, regards its
ability to enforce any human rights law in the areas under direct
Palestinian Authority control. Of course since Israel refuses to
recognize the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, this
particular Convention is never mentioned although this argument has
been applied to other international conventions that Israel does
recognize as applicable to the Territories. The problem with this
defense is that by all accounts the Palestine Authority does not
constitute a sovereign entity and remains directly under the control of
the Israeli military occupation authorities.
There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of any sovereignty for the
Palestine Authority in the original Declaration of Principles, or any
of the succeeding mutually accepted agreements between Israel and
Palestine Liberation Organization. The ultimate power remains Israel
and the Palestinian Authority is recognized in the Declaration of
Principles as being under the ?supreme authority of an Israeli
military government?.8 Or more to the point, Joel Singer, the former
chief legal advisor to the Israeli team in Oslo, says quite clearly:
??the Palestinian Council will not be independent or sovereign in
nature, but rather will be legally subordinate to the authority of the
military government. In other words, operating within Israel, the
military government will continue to be the source of authority for the
Palestinian Council and powers and responsibilities exercised by it in
the West Bank and Gaza strip.?9
Therefore, in that the Palestine Authority essentially amounts to an
autonomous branch of the Israeli government, any and all activity under
its authority remains its responsibility from a legal standpoint.
Although it should be noted that abuses and crimes conducted by
Palestinian Authority personnel cannot be justly laid at the door of
the Israeli military authorities in charge of the Palestine Authority
due to the level of autonomy granted it, i.e. the IDF does not control
day to day operations. Nevertheless, abuses carried out by Israeli
occupation officials remain within the jurisdiction of the Convention,
i.e. there is no change in the "occupied" status of the territories.
Conclusion
The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied
Territories is virtually universally accepted and thus in many respects
this brief essay was unnecessary, although by illustrating Israel?s
arguments against it we hope to provide legal activists with a quick
overview of those arguments that might be called upon by those charged
under it. The fact that the Fourth Geneva Convention has been
recognized as legally binding and violations of it as prosecutable
offenses makes it of vital importance to those seeking to bring these
criminals to justice.
Notes
1. Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention on August 12, 1949 and
ratified it on July 6, 1951.
2. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 259 (1968), 446 (1979),
465 (1980), 641 (1989), 904 (1994) and many others. For a detailed
summery compiled by the Palestine Permanent Observer Mission to the UN,
go to 
http://www.pna.org/mininfo/cause/un/geneva.htm
3. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions A/51/223, A/36/120,
A/41/162, A/45/83, A/50/22, and many others. For more information visit
the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs page
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dhk0
4. Article 2 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia 
http://www.un.org/icty/basic.htm
; Article 4 of
the statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda
http://www.ictr.org/
"
[Expand on this note once the country files are created dealing with
Universal jurisdiction]
5. see Article 23 of S/19443 of 21 January 1988
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/docs/S_19443.htm
The Canada-Israel Committee's "Middle East Peace Process Issue Brief #1
- Settlements, under the subheading, "Competing Legal Arguments"
http://web.idirect.com/~cic/issues/settlements.html
?Israel?s view on UN Emergency Special Session July 17? Point 13,
an official Israeli release placed online by Nederland Likoed, or the
Netherlands Likud 
http://www.nederland.nl/~likoed/govern17.html
6. Egypt ratified the Conventions October 11, 1952. Jordan ratified
them on May 29, 1951
7. See the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs release ?Israel?s
Settlements ? Their Conformity with International Law
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dgj0
8. See Boris Shusteff ?The Tight Rope Juggler? from Gamla Online
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/july/b1.htm
9. Joel Singer, ?The Declaration of Principles on Interim
Self-Government Arrangements?, published in Justice, the publication
of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Tel
Aviv, February 4th 1994

 dimostrato sotto senza ombra di dubbio.
Ma è molto discutibile e controverso che ci sia violazione della Convenzione, 
caro Giorgino.
Invece che passare la vita su 
allahakbar.com
, dovresti leggere anche qualche 
autorevole esperto indipendente, studiosi di legge internazionale di chiara 
fama, come Julius Stone:
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND THE LEGALITY OF THE SETTLEMENTS It is often claimed 
that settlement by Jews in the administered territories is in breach of the 
Fourth Geneva Convention. Professor Stone was the author of the treatise “Legal 
Controls of International Conflict”, which included an extensive commentary on 
the Geneva Conventions. Here he discusses their applicability in the 
Territories. Perhaps the central current criticism against the government of 
Israel in relation to its administration of the territories occupied after the 
1967 War concerns its alleged infractions of the final paragraph (6) of Article 
49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian 
Persons in Time of War, of August 12, 1949. The preceding paragraphs deal with 
deportation or transfer of a population out of the occupied territory. The final 
paragraph (6) reads as follows. "The occupying Power shall not deport or 
transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies." It 
has been shown that there are solid grounds in international law for denying any 
sovereign title to Jordan in the West Bank, and therefore any rights as 
reversioner state under the law of belligerent occupation… [Note: By the Peace 
Treaty of 1994 Jordan relinquished any claim to such sovereignty, and the 
argument which follows therefore applies a fortiori.] Not only does Jordan lack 
any legal title to the territories concerned, but the Convention itself does not 
by its terms apply to these territories. For, under Article 2, the Convention 
applies “to cases of … occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, 
by another such Party”. Insofar as the West Bank at present held by Israel does 
not belong to any other State, the Convention would not seem to apply to it at 
all. This is a technical, though rather decisive, legal point. It is also 
important to observe, however, that even if that point is set aside, the claim 
that Article 49 of the convention forbids the settlement of Jews in the West 
Bank is difficult to sustain. It is clear that in the drafting history, Article 
49 as a whole was directed against the heinous practice of the Nazi regime 
during the Nazi occupation of Europe in World War II, of forcibly transporting 
populations of which it wished to rid itself, into or out of occupied 
territories for the purpose of liquidating them with minimum disturbance
15
of its metropolitan territory, or to provide slave labour or for other inhumane 
purposes. The genocidal objectives, of which Article 49 was concerned to prevent 
future repetitions against other peoples, were in part conceived by the Nazi 
authorities as a means of ridding their Nazi occupant's metropolitan territory 
of Jews - of making it, in Nazi terms, judenrein. Such practices were, of 
course, prominent among the offences tried by war crimes tribunals after World 
War II. If and insofar, therefore, as Israel's position in Judea and Samaria 
(the West Bank) is merely that of an occupying power, Article 49 would forbid 
deportation or transfer of its own population onto the West Bank whenever this 
action has consequence of serving as a means of either (1) impairment of the 
economic situation or racial integrity of the native population of the occupied 
territory; or (2) inhuman treatment of its own population. Impairment of Racial 
Integrity of the Native Population of the Occupied Territory The prominence of 
the question of legality of Jewish settlements on the West Bank reflects the 
tension of the peace process, rather than the magnitude of any demographic 
movement. Despite vociferous political warfare pronouncements on both sides, it 
seems clear, therefore, that no serious dilution (much less extinction) of the 
separate racial existence of the native population has either taken place or is 
in prospect. Nor do well-known facts of dramatic improvement in the economic 
situation of the inhabitants since 1967 permit any suggestion that the situation 
has been worsened or impaired… Inhuman treatment of its own population On that 
issue, the terms of Article 49(6) however they are interpreted, are submitted to 
be totally irrelevant. To render them relevant, we would have to say that the 
effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the state of Israel to 
ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial 
association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein. Irony would thus be 
pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6) designed to prevent 
repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan 
territories judenrein, has now come to mean that Judea and Samaria the West Bank 
must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of 
force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants.


 Notes










Ottimo.
-- 
Qultura politica di Tonibaruch su It.Politica.Internazionale :


 situation of the inhabitants since 1967
Questo, da solo, rende l'intero testo una gigantesca boiata.
GT

proibito.
Puttanata!
E' proibito "DEPORT OR TRANSFER PART OF ITS OWN CIVILIAN POPULATION INTO
THE TERRITORY IT OCCUPIES".
Cosa che Israele non ha mai fatto.
-Stefano

Il resto sono chiacchiere.
Quoto.
-Stefano

 Quoto.
Già. Bel cut.
Un piacere discutere così <g>.
Tb


 D'altronde basta leggere "deportation or transfer".
Anche qui', siore e siore, la grande verita' e' in evidenza.     E'
cosi' evidente che molti
dei propagandisti a cui accennavo prima non hanno neanche tentato di
usare questo
"argomento".
E' lapalissiano che "transfer", quando si parla di trattati fra
_nazioni_, significa sia trasferimenti
forzati che volontari.     Non potrebbe essere altrimenti, visto che il
concetto di "forzato/volontario", in una guerra, e' spessissimo sfumato
fino a non avere molto senso.
Infatti, sempre citando il precedente della Croce Rossa, e' evidente
che non importa quanto volontario
sia stato il trasferimento.    Spesso e volentieri, i Coloni tedeschi,
molti dei quali Nazisti, accettavano
con gioia il trasferimento su un terreno regalatogli in Polonia dalla
Wermacht.
Per concludere, in vista dei numerosi dissidi che ho avuto
pubblicamente con Tb su questo NG, mi congratulo con lui per averla
vista giusta.  Ha detto una grande verita'.
Cosi' grande che non si puo' non citarla come conclusione:


vista giusta.  Ha detto una grande verita'.
Quoto :)
E tu hai fatto l'ennesima figura di merda :)
-Stefano

 ...disse il bue all'asino... :)
Però il nervosismo e la trottata mi sembrano rivelatori del fatto che i 
"foglietti" hanno colpito nel segno.
Alcune autorità del diritto internazionale sostengono che gli insediamenti non 
sono illegali, non sono in violazione della Convenzione di Ginevra, e spiegano 
perché.
Io non sono così esperto di diritto internazionale come gli oppositori di queste 
autorità di chiara fama (ad esempio il nostro chomskyano residente). Però 
rilevo, e mi pare indiscutibilmente confermato dall'agitazione vagamente 
isterica del Torrieri, che il dibattito giuridico c'è.
E' il mio solo punto. Ed è, ne sono addolorato per Torrieri, incontrovertibile.
Bella trottata, comunque. Mi è piaciuto specialmente dove, commentando un 
argomento di Julius Stone, sostiene che nessuno abbia mai usato quell'argomento.
Certe soddisfazioni non hanno prezzo :-)
