Sixth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week

[MHz]

You really don't read carefully, do you? I posted this information months ago.

How many exactly, I want to go look it up?

"The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."​

-- London Economist October 2, 1948
Did you see the recent movie about Jews operating as resistance fighters in WWII? They killed their own people for those very acts, aiding the enemy. By Oct of '48 Jews had destroyed hundreds of Arab villages

​

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."
​

-- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz)​

756,000 refugees, would you like a recap of the cities identified in the map?

 

[MHz]

Iron, although I agree with your assessment, there was a reason I didn't respond to it. It was simply a deflection. It doesn't even pertain to the conflict in this topic.

Don't bit at their hooks, that's how obfuscate the issues.

This is the part that applies.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The legal bases for this view were already powerful with the passage of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. It imposed on all its parties the obligation to allow “the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores” and of “all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases” even to its military adversaries. The 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions further cemented both the obligations of belligerents and the rights of noncombatants. Article 69 imposes on occupying powers the obligation to provide relief supplies to the population of its adversary “without any adverse distinction,” to ensure that population’s physical survival (it also called for the provision of articles necessary for religious worship). Article 70 requires belligerents to treat offers of relief not as interference in the conflict, so long as the relief effort was “humanitarian and impartial in character,” but as a duty imposed by international humanitarian law (IHL).
[/FONT]

 

[earth_as_one]

Regarding Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli rights.


Yosef Yitzhak Paritzky (Hebrew: יוסף יצחק פריצקי‎, born 14 September 1955) is an Israeli attorney, politician and columnist.
[edit] Background

Paritzky studied law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he gained an LL.B, and went on to work as an attorney. He is an attorney both in Israel and in New York.

Paritzky was known as a secular liberal who advocated for the separation of state and religion in Israel. He formed an association called "Am Hofshi" ("Free People") and was its chairman. Due to his activities he was offered a seat on the Shinui list prior to 1999 elections.

After winning a Knesset seat in the elections, Paritzky served as a member of the finance committee. He was re-elected in 2003 and was appointed Minister of National Infrastructure and Energy in Ariel Sharon's government.

Our apartheid state

Three racist, discriminatory decisions undermine Israel's democratic character Yossi Paritzky Published: 07.24.07, 16:08 / Israel Opinion

P{margin:0;} UL{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-right: 16; padding-right:0;} OL{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-right: 32; padding-right:0;} H3.pHeader {margin-bottom:3px;COLOR: #192862;font-size: 16px;font-weight: bold;margin-top:0px;} P.pHeader {margin-bottom:3px;COLOR: #192862;font-size: 16px;font-weight: bold;} One of the clearest rules that distinguishes a democratic state from a non-democratic state is the principle of equality when it comes to rights and obligations. In a democratic country, all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality when it comes to national assets, services and resources, and all citizens regardless of race, religion, gender or origin are equally obligated by national duties.

For example, in a democratic country everyone must pay taxes (although at different rates, of course,) and everyone must obey the law. On the other hand, every citizen in a democratic state is entitled to enjoy individual freedoms. One is entitled to purchase assets in the country, marry anyone he or she wish, work wherever one wants, study whatever one wishes, and express himself or herself as they wish..
In short, equality is the basic tenet of a liberal western democracy and without it a country is not democratic in practice although possibly democratic by law.
Last week, in a series of three decisions that are separate but connected through a stench of racism and discrimination, Israel entered the dismal pantheon of non-democratic states. This past Wednesday, Israel decided to be like apartheid-era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.
Let's start with obligations. In a democratic country that has mandatory military service, all citizens must serve with no exception (aside

​

from those who are unable to for health reasons or similar grounds.) A person should not be getting an exemption from service based on one's religion or race. And there, with a slight hand gesture, the Knesset decided to "extend" the legislation known as the Tal Law – which initially was meant to be valid for five transitory years only, in order to examine the possibility of integrating the strictly Orthodox into the IDF.
This was a blatantly anti-democratic arrangement and even those who drafted it reemphasized that it was merely a temporary agreement for five years only, yet around here the temporary becomes permanent, particularly when we're talking about discrimination and racism.
'Tainted sect'
The second apartheid decision has to do with the apparent "good news" that those who are unable to wed as a result of religious limitations would be able to marry each other now. What a disgusting expression that is. In a democratic country, a couple is allowed to marry however it wishes and the State is not at all allowed to interfere in this choice. It must allow any man to marry the woman he chooses (and in some countries same-sex marriages are also allowed,) because the State has no interest, and must not have one, in an individual's happiness and in the person one chooses to spend their life with.

But around here the situation is different. The division is based on religions and sects, and a member of one religion is not allowed to marry someone of a different religion. This has led to the emergence of a situation whereby an Israeli whose mother isn't Jewish, therefore making him non-Jewish according to Jewish law, was unable to marry in Israel at all.
Yet instead of allowing such person or any other person to marry as they wish, the government decided to establish a new sect. Now, a tainted sect has been created of people who can only marry among themselves. And so, an IDF officer whose last name is Rabinovich or even Cohen, who was born to a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother, would not be able to marry the woman who served in the army with him because she, lo and behold, is a kosher Jew while he is "tainted."
The culmination of this chutzpa is the fact that the current justice minister makes pretenses to call this racist arrangement a "breakthrough."
Anti-Zionist forces come together
The third racist decision was the one that banned Arab citizens of Israel from purchasing national land. Well, not all land, but only a part of it - Jewish National Fund land.

Imagine the French government banning Jews from purchasing land in Paris and its vicinity. Imagine that the United States would ban Jews from purchasing land in New England, because that's the cradle of American culture. What would we say then?
Yet when it comes to Arabs we keep silent, because we have been accustomed to think that in Israel there are citizens of various ranks and not everyone is entitled to the same rights.
The highlight of this absurd situation is that racist discourse takes place in the Israeli Knesset, yet nobody sees their own racism. Arab Knesset members, who justifiably protested the terrible discrimination against them, voted in favor of the Tal Law, which allows discrimination among Jews.
Instead of Arab Knesset members backing the enlistment of Arab Israelis to the army and playing an appropriate role when it comes to duties and rights, they preserve the racism. And so, all the anti-Zionist forces joined together – the Arabs, strictly Orthodox and settlers – to bring Israel to a place of chaos and darkness, blatant racism and screaming discrimination. All of them joined forces in order to bring us to a state of apartheid.
History has amused us by bringing these decisions at the beginning of the month of Av. Anyone who will be studying the destruction of the Third Temple, that is, the collapse of the Zionist enterprise and of the State of Israel, would certainly emphasize the above-mentioned disastrous decisions.
History played another trick by bringing these decisions a day after Jabotinsky Day was marked. Ze'ev Jabotinsky was a full-fledged atheist, secular, and Zionist who wrote that Arabs and Jews will be playing in this country together. Had he been resurrected and seen those who pretend to be his successors pass these despicable and contemptible decisions, he would certainly wish to die.

The writer is a former Shinui cabinet minister

Our apartheid state - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

 

[Colpy]

I did contact them and gave them links to the Goldstone and Amnesty reports, as well as links to B'Tselem and Badil. I'm not expecting a response.

These rating obviously don't take into account the reasons why Israel is an Apartheid state. I'm sure Apartheid South Africa would have got a glowing report if you only considered the situation for "whites" and ignored "blacks" and "coloreds". Also they treat Israel differently than China. The report does not give ratings for Tibet, which was occupied by China about the same time Zionists began their ethnic cleansing war. Yet it does give ratings for the West Bank and Gaza, which were the only non UN recognized nations on the list. If they were to be fair and wanted to list Gaza and the West Bank separately, they would have to list every occupied territory separately from their occupying nations. Only Israel got this special treatment, which is why the report is flawed.

Oh Bull****, start to finish. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza are "occupied" with Israeli troops stationed there. Both have their own government. China considers Tibet part of the country....Israel most emphatically DOES NOT consider the WB&G part of Israel......

Israel IS NOT an apartheid state....Blacks in South Africa DID NOT vote as equals, they DID NOT have representatives on the Supreme Court, nor did the Constitution recognize them as full citizens.........you are so full of hatred you are incapable of dealing with the truth.

ISRAEL is guilty of ethnic cleansing??????? Why 20% of Israel is ARAB........what percentage of ANY of her eemies is Jewish???

What a joke!:angryfire::angryfire:

 

[earth_as_one]

Colpy, you are entitled to your opinion. Respectfully, so is everyone else.

Here is another opinion regarding Israeli Apartheid:

John Dugard (born in 1936 in Fort Beaufort) is a South African professor of international law. He has served as Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for both the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. His main academic specializations are in Roman-Dutch law, public international law, jurisprudence, human rights, criminal procedure and international criminal law. He has written extensively on South African apartheid.

24/08/2004
UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa
By Aluf Benn

South African law professor Prof. John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, has written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is "an apartheid regime" in the territories "worse than the one that existed in South Africa.

As an example, Dugard points to the roads only open to settlers, from which Palestinians are banned.

In his report presented early this month, Dugard is highly critical of Israel for its "continuing violations of human rights in the territories." He said Israel is blatantly violating the International Court of Justice's ruling on the separation fence, and has declared it will not obey it.

The report was disseminated among the member countries ahead of the September General Assembly session meant to discuss the fence.

Dugard, a law professor from South Africa, was a member of a Truth Commission at the end of the apartheid regime, and was appointed by the UN in 2001 as special rapporteur for human rights in the West Bank and Gaza.

He called for a general arms embargo against Israel in May, in response to the IDF operations in Rafah, similar to the arms embargo imposed on South Africa in 1977....

UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa - Haaretz - Israel News

 

[CDNBear]

This is the part that applies.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The legal bases for this view were already powerful with the passage of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. It imposed on all its parties the obligation to allow “the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores” and of “all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases” even to its military adversaries. The 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions further cemented both the obligations of belligerents and the rights of noncombatants. Article 69 imposes on occupying powers the obligation to provide relief supplies to the population of its adversary “without any adverse distinction,” to ensure that population’s physical survival (it also called for the provision of articles necessary for religious worship). Article 70 requires belligerents to treat offers of relief not as interference in the conflict, so long as the relief effort was “humanitarian and impartial in character,” but as a duty imposed by international humanitarian law (IHL).
[/FONT]

Please cite the exact sections of the law, not someone else's interpretations of it please.

Here is another opinion regarding Israeli Apartheid:

How about you actually research it objectively, cite each individual case with a link to documented evidence, not an opinion, and then post your own opinion?

 

[ironsides]

Now this is a step in the right direction, lets see just how much control Hamas really has.


Hamas signals it wants to keep Gaza quiet.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Gaza's Hamas rulers indicated Friday they were trying to keep attacks on Israel in check, in an apparent attempt to keep a recent spate of violence from spiraling into open conflict.
Hamas made this known just hours after Israeli aircraft pounded multiple targets in the territory in response to the latest rocket attack on southern Israel. Three Palestinian children were wounded in one of the Israeli airstrikes, Gaza health official Dr. Moaiya Hassanain said.
A statement released by the Hamas government after the aerial attacks accused Israel of an "escalation" against Gaza. But the Hamas government also said it was "making contact with the factions to safeguard internal agreement."
Hamas has never explicitly criticized attacks against Israel, though top officials have said such attacks don't serve Palestinian interests right now. Friday's statement signaled the Islamic group was pushing to get the territory's other militant groups to honor this policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

 

[Just the Facts]

Colpy, you are entitled to your opinion. Respectfully, so is everyone else.

Here is another opinion regarding Israeli Apartheid:

John Dugard (born in 1936 in Fort Beaufort) is a South African professor of international law. He has served as Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for both the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. His main academic specializations are in Roman-Dutch law, public international law, jurisprudence, human rights, criminal procedure and international criminal law. He has written extensively on South African apartheid.

lol maybe Just the Opinions will be interested in that. I'm still waiting for the facts. Just the Facts.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy, you are entitled to your opinion. Respectfully, so is everyone else.

Here is another opinion regarding Israeli Apartheid:

John Dugard (born in 1936 in Fort Beaufort) is a South African professor of international law. He has served as Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for both the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. His main academic specializations are in Roman-Dutch law, public international law, jurisprudence, human rights, criminal procedure and international criminal law. He has written extensively on South African apartheid.

That's lovely....

Except that the West Bank and Gaza ARE NOT ISRAEL.

:roll:

 

[Colpy]

Now this is a step in the right direction, lets see just how much control Hamas really has.


Hamas signals it wants to keep Gaza quiet.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Gaza's Hamas rulers indicated Friday they were trying to keep attacks on Israel in check, in an apparent attempt to keep a recent spate of violence from spiraling into open conflict.
Hamas made this known just hours after Israeli aircraft pounded multiple targets in the territory in response to the latest rocket attack on southern Israel. Three Palestinian children were wounded in one of the Israeli airstrikes, Gaza health official Dr. Moaiya Hassanain said.
A statement released by the Hamas government after the aerial attacks accused Israel of an "escalation" against Gaza. But the Hamas government also said it was "making contact with the factions to safeguard internal agreement."
Hamas has never explicitly criticized attacks against Israel, though top officials have said such attacks don't serve Palestinian interests right now. Friday's statement signaled the Islamic group was pushing to get the territory's other militant groups to honor this policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

That's lovely as well.....except it does not include the two soldiers killed in a HAMAS ambush.......for which Israel has yet to retaliate.

Hamas......OMG, they fire rockets into Israel (or allow them to be fired), they claim responsibility for ambush and killing of two IDF soldiers......then they cry for international pressure to be put on Israel when the IDF retaliates.

about time the Israelis made a point....again. Perhaps the people of Gaza will get the idea that being represented by Hamas is....unwise.

 

[MHz]

Please cite the exact sections of the law, not someone else's interpretations of it please.

How about you actually research it objectively, cite each individual case with a link to documented evidence, not an opinion, and then post your own opinion?

As for reports I wait for them to come from the UN and Israel and Hamas, same as everybody else. In the meantime would you like to go over each of the UN Resolutions one by one to see what the actual charges other than being a bad neighbor with too many guns. Israel would happily say they have been in a constant state of war since Nov of 47. We can examine Nuremberg records to see if any of the articles in these two documents were ever used in any charges the Nazis faced.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons
for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

Art. 108. Internees shall be allowed to receive, by post or by any other means, individual parcels or collective shipments containing in particular foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies, as well as books and objects of a devotional, educational or recreational character which may meet their needs. Such shipments shall in no way free the Detaining Power from the obligations imposed upon it by virtue of the present Convention.

Should military necessity require the quantity of such shipments to be limited, due notice thereof shall be given to the Protecting Power and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, or to any other organization giving assistance to the internees and responsible for the forwarding of such shipments.

The conditions for the sending of individual parcels and collective shipments shall, if necessary, be the subject of special agreements between the Powers concerned, which may in no case delay the receipt by the internees of relief supplies. Parcels of clothing and foodstuffs may not include books. Medical relief supplies shall, as a rule, be sent in collective parcels.

Art. 109. In the absence of special agreements between Parties to the conflict regarding the conditions for the receipt and distribution of collective relief shipments, the regulations concerning collective relief which are annexed to the present Convention shall be applied.

The special agreements provided for above shall in no case restrict the right of Internee Committees to take possession of collective relief shipments intended for internees, to undertake their distribution and to dispose of them in the interests of the recipients. Nor shall such agreements restrict the right of representatives of the Protecting Powers, the International Committee of the Red Cross, or any other organization giving assistance to internees and responsible for the forwarding of collective shipments, to supervise their distribution to the recipients.

Art. 110. An relief shipments for internees shall be exempt from import, customs and other dues.

All matter sent by mail, including relief parcels sent by parcel post and remittances of money, addressed from other countries to internees or despatched by them through the post office, either direct or through the Information Bureaux provided for in Article 136 and the Central Information Agency provided for in Article 140, shall be exempt from all postal dues both in the countries of origin and destination and in intermediate countries. To this end, in particular, the exemption provided by the Universal Postal Convention of 1947 and by the agreements of the Universal Postal Union in favour of civilians of enemy nationality detained in camps or civilian prisons, shall be extended to the other interned persons protected by the present Convention. The countries not signatory to the above-mentioned agreements shall be bound to grant freedom from charges in the same circumstances.

The cost of transporting relief shipments which are intended for internees and which, by reason of their weight or any other cause, cannot be sent through the post office, shall be borne by the Detaining Power in all the territories under its control. Other Powers which are Parties to the present Convention shall bear the cost of transport in their respective territories.

Costs connected with the transport of such shipments, which are not covered by the above paragraphs, shall be charged to the senders.

The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour to reduce, so far as possible, the charges for telegrams sent by internees, or addressed to them.

Art. 111. Should military operations prevent the Powers concerned from fulfilling their obligation to ensure the conveyance of the mail and relief shipments provided for in Articles 106, 107, 108 and 113, the Protecting Powers concerned, the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other organization duly approved by the Parties to the conflict may undertake the conveyance of such shipments by suitable means (rail, motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft, etc.). For this purpose, the High Contracting Parties shall endeavour to supply them with such transport, and to allow its circulation, especially by granting the necessary safe-conducts.

Such transport may also be used to convey:
(a) correspondence, lists and reports exchanged between the Central Information Agency referred to in Article 140 and the National Bureaux referred to in Article 136;
(b) correspondence and reports relating to internees which the Protecting Powers, the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other organization assisting the internees exchange either with their own delegates or with the Parties to the conflict.

These provisions in no way detract from the right of any Party to the conflict to arrange other means of transport if it should so prefer, nor preclude the granting of safe-conducts, under mutually agreed conditions, to such means of transport.

The costs occasioned by the use of such means of transport shall be borne, in proportion to the importance of the shipments, by the Parties to the conflict whose nationals are benefited thereby.


Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Art 69. Basic needs in occupied territories

1. In addition to the duties specified in Article 55 of the Fourth Convention concerning food and medical supplies, the Occupying Power shall, to the fullest extent of the means available to it and without any adverse distinction, also ensure the provision of clothing, bedding, means of shelter, other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population of the occupied territory and objects necessary for religious worship.

2. Relief actions for the benefit of the civilian population of occupied territories are governed by Articles 59, 60, 61, 62, 108, 109, 110 and 111 of the Fourth Convention, and by Article 71 of this Protocol, and shall be implemented without delay.

Art 59. Non-defended localities

1. It is prohibited for the Parties to the conflict to attack, by any means whatsoever, non-defended localities.
2. The appropriate authorities of a Party to the conflict may declare as a non-defended locality any inhabited place near or in a zone where armed forces are in contact which is open for occupation by an adverse Party.
Such a locality shall fulfil the following conditions:
(a) all combatants, as well as mobile weapons and mobile military equipment must have been evacuated;
(b) no hostile use shall be made of fixed military installations or establishments;
(c) no acts of hostility shall be committed by the authorities or by the population; and
(d) no activities in support of military operations shall be undertaken.

3. The presence, in this locality, of persons specially protected under the Conventions and this Protocol, and of police forces retained for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order, is not contrary to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2.

4. The declaration made under paragraph 2 shall be addressed to the adverse Party and shall define and describe, as precisely as possible, the limits of the non-defended locality. The Party to the conflict to which the declaration is addressed shall acknowledge its receipt and shall treat the locality as a non-defended locality unless the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are not in fact fulfilled, in which event it shall immediately so inform the Party making the declaration. Even if the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are not fulfilled, the locality shall continue to enjoy the protection provided by the other provisions of this Protocol and the other rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

5. The Parties to the conflict may agree on the establishment of non-defended localities even if such localities do not fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 2. The agreement should define and describe, as precisely as possible, the limits of the non-defended locality; if necessary, it may lay down the methods of supervision.

6. The Party which is in control of a locality governed by such an agreement shall mark it, so far as possible, by such signs as may be agreed upon with the other Party, which shall be displayed where they are clearly visible, especially on its perimeter and limits and on highways.

7. A locality loses its status as a non-defended locality when its ceases to fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 or in the agreement referred to in paragraph 5. In such an eventuality, the locality shall continue to enjoy the protection provided by the other provisions of this Protocol and the other rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.


Art 60. Demilitarized zones

1. It is prohibited for the Parties to the conflict to extend their military operations to zones on which they have conferred by agreement the status of demilitarized zone, if such extension is contrary to the terms of this agreement.

2. The agreement shall be an express agreement, may be concluded verbally or in writing, either directly or through a Protecting Power or any impartial humanitarian organization, and may consist of reciprocal and concordant declarations. The agreement may be concluded in peacetime, as well as after the outbreak of hostilities, and should define and describe, as precisely as possible, the limits of the demilitarized zone and, if necessary, lay down the methods of supervision.

3. The subject of such an agreement shall normally be any zone which fulfils the following conditions:

(a) all combatants, as well as mobile weapons and mobile military equipment, must have been evacuated;
(b) no hostile use shall be made of fixed military installations or establishments;
(c) no acts of hostility shall be committed by the authorities or by the population; and
(d) any activity linked to the military effort must have ceased.

The Parties to the conflict shall agree upon the interpretation to be given to the condition laid down in subparagraph (d) and upon persons to be admitted to the demilitarized zone other than those mentioned in paragraph 4.

4. The presence, in this zone, of persons specially protected under the Conventions and this Protocol, and of police forces retained for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order, is not contrary to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3.

5. The Party which is in control of such a zone shall mark it, so far as possible, by such signs as may be agreed upon with the other Party, which shall be displayed where they are clearly visible, especially on its perimeter and limits and on highways.

6. If the fighting draws near to a demilitarized zone, and if the Parties to the conflict have so agreed, none of them may use the zone for purposes related to the conduct of military operations or unilaterally revoke its status.

7. If one of the Parties to the conflict commits a material breach of the provisions of paragraphs 3 or 6, the other Party shall be released from its obligations under the agreement conferring upon the zone the status of demilitarized zone. In such an eventuality, the zone loses its status but shall continue to enjoy the protection provided by the other provisions of this Protocol and the other rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Chapter VI. Civil defence

Art 61. - Definitions and scope

For the purpose of this Protocol:

(1) "Civil defence" means the performance of some or all of the undermentioned humanitarian tasks intended to protect the civilian population against the dangers, and to help it to recover from the immediate effects, of hostilities or disasters and also to provide the conditions necessary for its survival. These tasks are:

(a) warning;
(b) evacuation;
(c) management of shelters;
(d) management of blackout measures;
(e) rescue;
(f) medical services, including first aid, and religious assistance;
(g) fire-fighting;
(h) detection and marking of danger areas;
(i) decontamination and similar protective measures;
(j) provision of emergency accommodation and supplies;
(k) emergency assistance in the restoration and maintenance of order in distressed areas;
(l) emergency repair of indispensable public utilities;
(m) emergency disposal of the dead;
assistance in the preservation of objects essential for survival;
(o) complementary activities necessary to carry out any of the tasks mentioned above, including, but not limited to, planning and organization;

(2) "Civil defence organizations" means those establishments and other units which are organized or authorized by the competent authorities of a Party to the conflict to perform any of the tasks mentioned under (1), and which are assigned and devoted exclusively to such tasks; (3) "Personnel" of civil defence organizations means those persons assigned by a Party to the conflict exclusively to the performance of the tasks mentioned under (1), including personnel assigned by the competent authority of that Party exclusively to the administration of these organizations;

(4) "Matériel" of civil defence organizations means equipment, supplies and transports used by these organizations for the performance of the tasks mentioned under (1).


Art 62. General protection

1. Civilian civil defence organizations and their personnel shall be respected and protected, subject to the provisions of this Protocol, particularly the provisions of this section. They shall be entitled to perform their civil defence tasks except in case of imperative military necessity.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall also apply to civilians who, although not members of civilian civil defence organizations, respond to an appeal from the competent authorities and perform civil defence tasks under their control.

3. Buildings and matériel used for civil defence purposes and shelters provided for the civilian population are covered by Article 52. Objects used for civil defence purposes may not be destroyed or diverted from their proper use except by the Party to which they belong.

 

[earth_as_one]

...about time the Israelis made a point....again....

You think its about time Israel rained down more death and destruction on the starving and sick people of Gaza? How cruel and sadistic...

Unlike Colpy, I think its about time Israel started respecting international laws and stopped slaughtering innocent people:

Blinding the Children: Israel and White Phosphorus in Gaza

Wounded Gazan girl brought to hospital (Mohammed Abed/AFP-Getty)



“Entirely consistent with international law,” says the IDF PR flack, of Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza’s streets. Does international law countenance the use of such a weapon in an urban war zone densely populated by civilians? Of course not.


Here’s how the Times reports the story:

Palestinians interviewed in Gaza on Monday cited…Israel soldiers…firing rounds of a noxious substance that burns skin and makes it hard to breathe.
A resident of southwest Gaza City on Monday showed a reporter a piece of metal casing with the identifying number M825A1, which Marc Garlasco, a military analyst with Human Rights Watch, identified as white phosphorus, typically used for signaling, smoke screens and destroying enemy equipment.
In recent years, experts and rights advocates have argued over whether its use to intentionally harm human beings violates international conventions.
​

This is not correct. International conventions allow the use of phosphorus on an open battlefield in which it is used as a smokescreen. However, when it used in a way that injures non-combatants it is a clear violation of international law. It may not be used in confined settings in which civilians are present.

Major Dallal would not say whether Israel was using white phosphorus, but said: “The munitions we use are consistent with international law.”
Still, white phosphorus can cause injury, and a growing number of Gazans report being hurt by it, including in Beit Lahiya, Khan Yunis, and in east and southwest Gaza City. When exposed to air, it ignites, experts say, and if packed into an artillery shell, it can rain down flaming chemicals that cling to anything they touch.

Luay Suboh, 10, from Beit Lahiya, lost his eyesight and the skin on his face on Saturday when, his mother said, a fiery substance clung to him as he darted home from a shelter where his family was staying to pick up clothes.


The substance smelled like burned trash, said Ms. Jaawanah, the mother who fled her home in Zeitun, who had experienced it too. She had no affection for Hamas, but her sufferings were changing that. “Do you think I’m against them firing rockets now?” she asked, referring to Hamas. “No. I was against it before. Not anymore.”
​

This is how Israel multiplies the hate arrayed against it among Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world. And can you really blame a Palestinian family placed in such a situation? Pro-Israel Jews speak as if Hamas’ antagonism springs from some deep-seated religious hatred going back generations or millennia. No, it springs from incidents like this one multiplied a hundred or thousand-fold. Israel creates the scarred, the blind, the lame and the martyrs. Then they turn and wreak their havoc on the country and world which did this to them. Vengeance is not just the Lord’s. Sometimes it is the crippled’s or the tortured’s.


Blinding the Children: Israel and White Phosphorus in Gaza | Tikun Olam-???? ????: Make the World a Better Place

Perhaps you could expand on your statement Colpy. How would you like to see Israel slaughter these children? Would you like to see their skin seared and melted to the bone with white phosphorus or do you think they deserve having their flesh sliced with thousands of flechettes?

Gaza Strip, April 28 (Pal telegraph) - Wearing jeans day and night because my brother told me that it's the strongest tissue against the white phosphorus...

Sitting next to the radio 24 hours a day...
Sleeping on death news and waking up on the sounds of explosions...

Waiting for my neighbors house to be bombed...

And waiting for death...All these memories were never out of my mind, but I recalled them with a smile of bitterness last week when I heard the news. Northern Korea launched a long- range missile into space. As a result, the security council held an urgent immediate session in the same day to discuss the issue.

The purpose of the meeting was to condemn Korea for violating of the united nations' resolutions, and to take the necessary procedures to punish Korea appropriately and to make sure that such a "provocative act" will not be repeated.

However, hundreds of innocent civilians lying in everywhere our sight could reach was not pressing enough to conduct an urgent meeting to stop Israel.

The security council needed one full week to hold its meeting and another week to hand out the draft of the non- resolution, which included neither time nor date, to the Israeli government. Moreover, it asked for bilateral cease- fire as if the two parties were equal.

And after the war, Ban Ki Moon( the Secretary General of the United Nations) came to Gaza to inspect the damage and the destruction caused by the Israeli war machine. But, the Israelis refused but to take him to Sedrot to see the damage caused by our pieces of iron as if it was comparable.

Also, doctors from all regions, Arabs and foreigners, who thought themselves qualified, admitted that their qualifications and experiences were nullified in Gaza. Surgeries were performed successfully, but patients die. Why?? God knows... They could not identify the materials that penetrated the bodies and destroyed it from the inside; therefore, they could not find the therapy. However, human rights institutions needed tens of days to decide whether what happened in Gaza was war crimes or not as if a thousand and a half dead and thousands of permanent disabilities and impairments was not enough number.

Each day passes makes me more aware of the unjust world we live in where the jungle law prevails. It's a world where the one who has the power is the one who survives. But, we will not be defeated that easy.

We will survive...
Hana Omar Al- Yaqubi

Recalling Gaza war: Sleeping in one room with my four brothers, sister, mum and dad…

Colpy, Please share with us your ideas on how you think Israel should slaughter innocent Palestinian children.

 

[earth_as_one]

Recently the Canadian government voted in the UN against holding war criminals responsible for their actions:

(New York) - Today's United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for impartial Gaza war crimes investigations is an important step toward justice for all civilian victims of last year's conflict, Human Rights Watch said. A majority of UN members, including most European Union (EU) states, voted for the resolution...

...
The Goldstone report concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
Sixteen EU members voted for the resolution, including permanent Security Council members France and the United Kingdom.


The countries voting against were Canada, Israel, Macedonia, Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, and the United States.


"Washington's objection to this resolution reveals a blatant double standard when it comes to international justice," Crawshaw said. "Why should the victims of war crimes in Gaza not benefit from the same US demands for accountability as victims in Congo and Darfur?"...


Israel/Gaza: General Assembly Presses for War Justice | Human Rights Watch

I'd like to be proud of Canada. But I am disgusted with the Harper government's support of war criminals. Canada should remain objective and fair. If people commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, Canada should support bringing these people to justice. Instead we have become an obstacle to justice and complicit in their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

[Colpy]

Recently the Canadian government voted in the UN against holding war criminals responsible for their actions:

I'd like to be proud of Canada. But I am disgusted with the Harper government's support of war criminals. Canada should remain objective and fair. If people commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, Canada should support bringing these people to justice. Instead we have become an obstacle to justice and complicit in their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Makes me proud to be Canadian to stand up for our allies.

22 days. 1400 dead.

That is called RESTRAINT......The idea of "war crimes" is ludicrous.

You need a lesson in reality EAO. You live in a fantasy world.

 

[ironsides]

Recently the Canadian government voted in the UN against holding war criminals responsible for their actions:

I'd like to be proud of Canada. But I am disgusted with the Harper government's support of war criminals. Canada should remain objective and fair. If people commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, Canada should support bringing these people to justice. Instead we have become an obstacle to justice and complicit in their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

You are a very opinionated person, your country says no war crimes were committed and still based upon second and third hand knowledge you still disagree with them. Guess nothing will convince you.

 

[earth_as_one]

My opinion is based on first hand accounts from witnesses, supported by physical evidence. Your opinion is based on press releases from the Israeli government, regurgitated by our news and government officials...

Canada and the US are out of step with the overwhelming majority of nations which recognize the Goldstone Report.

General Assembly backs findings of UN report into Gaza conflict

The four person United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict



5 November 2009 – The General Assembly today endorsed the report of the United Nations investigation which found that both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants were guilty of serious human rights violations during the conflict in the Gaza Strip at the start of the year.

After two days of debate in the Assembly, at UN Headquarters in New York, 114 Member States voted in favour of a resolution endorsing the report’s findings and its recommendations for further action. Eighteen States voted against the resolution and another 44 countries abstained.


The probe, led by Justice Richard Goldstone, a former war crimes prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, found that both sides committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law, possibly amounting to crimes against humanity, during the conflict in December 2008 and January 2009.

General Assembly backs findings of UN report into Gaza conflict

Eye witness testimony and other evidence gathered during Goldstone's investigation is publicly available here:

Public Hearings
As part of its investigation process, the Mission held two sets of public hearings, in Gaza City and in Geneva, during which nearly 40 witnesses, victims and experts gave testimony. The aim of holding the hearings publicly was to give a voice to those who had direct experiences and expertise related to the mandate of the Mission.


The public hearings in Gaza included victims and experts from Gaza and took place on Sunday 28 and Monday 29 June 2009. [See press releases of 25 June and 29 June 2009.]


Those in Geneva included victims and experts from Israel and the West Bank, as well as military and legal experts, and were held on Monday 6 and Tuesday 7 July, 2009. [See press release of 7 July and summary of 7 July press conference 2009]

The public hearings are webcast by the United Nations and can be viewed by visiting the webcast archive.


High-resolution photographs of the hearings can be viewed and downloaded from the Mission’s FTP Server:
ftp://ftp.ohchr.org/
ftp://ftp.ohchr.org
username: FFMG2009
password: P433FF


(It is necessary to use UPPER CASE characters in the username and password)

Transcripts of the Public Hearings

• 28 June 2009, Gaza City Morning Session
• 28 June 2009, Gaza City Afternoon Session
• 29 June 2009, Gaza City Morning Session
• 29 June 2009, Gaza City Afternoon Session
• 6 July 2009, Geneva Morning Session
• 6 July 2009, Geneva Afternoon Session
• 7 July 2009, Geneva Morning Session
• 7 July 2009, Geneva Afternoon Session

Methodology
The Mission worked on the basis of international human rights and humanitarian law and international investigative standards developed by the United Nations.


The Mission reviewed reports produced by various organizations and institutions as well as submissions on matters of fact and law relevant to its inquiry. A notice has been issued to call for submissions (see above). The Mission consulted with a wide range of interlocutors including victims and witnesses, Palestinian, Israeli and international NGOs, United Nations and other international organizations, community organizations, human rights defenders, medical and other professionals, legal and military experts, authorities and other sources of reliable information relevant to its mandate, within and outside Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. The Mission also held public hearings on particular issues of concern related to its mandate.
Information-gathering methods included the analysis of video and photographic images, including satellite imagery: Satellite image analysis in support to the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.


United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict

Every reputable human rights organization that has investigated what happened in Gaza has come to the same conclusion without exception: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross... and so on.

Also check out the videos on this website:
Welcome to the Goldstone Report

example:
YouTube - ISRAEL WAR CRIMES GAZA 1//5. Zeitoun Village killings.

The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that Israel committed war crimes and continues to commit a horrendous crime against humanity.


As a Canadian, I'm exercising my legal right to free speech and speaking out against war crimes and crimes against humanity, even though my government unshakably supports Israel using children to shield tanks and artillery from attack, using chemical weapons against UN shelters, gunning down unarmed civilians in cold blood under a white flag of truce.... The list is very long. Read the report:


United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict

 

[MHz]

You are a very opinionated person, your country says no war crimes were committed and still based upon second and third hand knowledge you still disagree with them. Guess nothing will convince you.

We were 1 of 10 countries that voted for stopping the investigation into the complaints made. more than 90 voted that the complaints should investigated further.

 

[CDNBear]

As for reports I wait for them to come from the UN and Israel and Hamas, same as everybody else. In the meantime would you like to go over each of the UN Resolutions one by one to see what the actual charges other than being a bad neighbor with too many guns. Israel would happily say they have been in a constant state of war since Nov of 47.

Again, I take nothing presented by the UN seriously, which I have stated several times now. Is there some issue you have with English, or do you have a deep seeded comprehension issue?

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

That's awesome, I can cut & paste the bulk of the convention too.

The request was, please cite which sections of the convention that pertain to the accusations against Israel.

My opinion is based on first hand accounts from witnesses, supported by physical evidence.

That's why the first cut & paste in your post was an OpEd piece, and the last was a YouTube video...yep, that's facts alright.

Your opinion is based on press releases from the Israeli government, regurgitated by our news and government officials...

Actually, if you were truly objective, and actually looked at the info we've posted, it is actual facts, with supporting documentation right back to the source. Unlike your which is oft second and third hand accounts. When you supply first hand accounts, it's so over the top mellow dramatic, it's actually hard to take seriously. This of course is compounded by the fact that there is a production company called Pallywood.

Canada and the US are out of step with the overwhelming majority of nations which recognize the Goldstone Report.

And anyone that is in touch with the Goldstone report, is out of touch with reality.

Eye witness testimony and other evidence gathered during Goldstone's investigation is publicly available here:

And why haven't you addressed the factual inaccuracies I provided eao?

Every reputable human rights organization that has investigated what happened in Gaza has come to the same conclusion without exception: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross... and so on.

1, They're not reputable. 2, They have been shown to have their own interpretation of the law.

As a Canadian, I'm exercising my legal right to free speech and speaking out against war crimes and crimes against humanity, even though my government unshakably supports Israel using children to shield tanks and artillery from attack, using chemical weapons against UN shelters, gunning down unarmed civilians in cold blood under a white flag of truce....

And I'm using my rights to free speech to tell you that you look like a bigot. You believe and reproduce half truths, lies, myths and false testimony, to bring hate against Israel. While claiming to be doing because you are a "humanitarian. Mean while, 300,000 are slaughtered in the Sudan, and you pipe up when forced to.

You have consistently dismissed IDF findings, in favour of those presented by Hamas and the Hezbollah. Citing that you believe them more. Then you have defended them both, with assertions that one is duly elected and the others are freedom fighters. Never once acknowledging that both have as a part of their written policy, the expressed wish to commit genocide on the people of Israel.

That makes you a bigot and a monumental hypocrite.

 

[Colpy]

My opinion is based on first hand accounts from witnesses, supported by physical evidence. Your opinion is based on press releases from the Israeli government, regurgitated by our news and government officials...

Canada and the US are out of step with the overwhelming majority of nations which recognize the Goldstone Report.

The overwhelming majority of nations are wrong, as are you.

what other nation, besides Israel, drops leaflets warning the people to take cover before a retaliatory attack???

RESTRAINT is the Israeli order of the day.........RESTRAINT was used in Gaza in January 1009. That is obvious by the casualty figures......and trying to track every round fired, every artillery shell used, every missile launched is idiotic. The overall essence of the mission was restraint.

Had Israel pulled out the stops, there would be few Arabs in Gaza.......the survivors would have fled across the border into Egypt.......all you and the Jew-hating UN are achieving is pushing Israel to abandon restraint...I mean, really, why bother?????

 

[Dixie Cup]

Saw a short film on U=tube about how militants regularly "set-up" the Isreali's, claiming damage and untold desctruction and it's all a scam. Even 60 Minutes fell for the scam - it's so well done that, anyone watching a quick news clip on TV wouldn't catch it at all. Supposidly dead men, got up and walked or got "shot" again by the Isreali's and much of the shooting back and forth was in the opposite direction of where an Israeli post was situation. It was quite interesting. I, personally, don't believe the Jews are as horrible as everyone makes them out to be and this pretty much affirms it. When an Israeli soldier does something they shouldn't they're put on trial as they should be. But you don't hear much about that in the news. It's so unfortunate how one-sided everything is shown to be.

It's the old adage, believe only in half (if not less) than what you see and hear as it's all likely bunk!

JMO