Mossad Chief: Israel becoming a burden for the USA

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer
The occupation must end completely and without condition or exception. That is the minimum and cannot be considered to be any kind of concession.

most of us understand that such an attitude is a recipe for the perpetual continuation of the occupation.

 

[Virus]

The occupation must end completely and without condition or exception. That is the minimum and cannot be considered to be any kind of concession.

Rather anything short of that is no more than an excuse to continue the crime of occupation.

Not going to happen. You can't just give up the West Bank without any sort of concrete agreement from the Palestinians.

Not that a truther, holocaust denier and antisemite would care anyway.

 

[Thunder]

Not going to happen. You can't just give up the West Bank without any sort of concrete agreement from the Palestinians.

Not that a truther, holocaust denier and antisemite would care anyway.

ouch. harsh dude.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
The occupation must end completely and without condition or exception. That is the minimum and cannot be considered to be any kind of concession.

most of us understand that such an attitude is a recipe for the perpetual continuation of the occupation.

Yes, the world is fully aware that Israel's neverending violations of the 4th Geneva Convention will continue. It is a criminal nation. It was created in 1949 in light of the recent atrocities and does a fair job of prohibiting them. Israel is a signatory.

And if you recall I have posted two Haaretz articles in which the equivalent of the US Chief Justice and its Attorney General both agree the territories are occupied so this claim they are not occupied is pure Hasbara meant for foreign consumption.

Israel spent decades "defending" the squattertowns by claiming they served a military purpose and thus were lawful under the 4th Geneva Convention. That lie has been dropped leaving Israel in clear violation of a treaty to which it is a signatory but without an excuse. This is a classic up the creek without a paddle situation.

It is clear the political will in the west to deal with Israel does not exist any more than it existed to bring an end to Apartheid in South Africa. In the case of South Africa it took a popular boycott movement before governments got behind the movement.

That is why the boycott of Israel is gaining momentum around the world.

There is no reason to compromise with thieves nor is it rational to negotiate with thieves on how much they can keep.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Not going to happen. You can't just give up the West Bank without any sort of concrete agreement from the Palestinians.

As the occupation itself is a crime per se then that amounts to extortion. Not to say I expected anything better from zionists who by definition are murderers and thieves.

Not that a truther, holocaust denier and antisemite would care anyway.

You know you are an antisemite unless ...
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Care to document why occupation is a crime?

Yes and I have.

Indeed. The Jews and all that damn *breathing* they do.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Pfft, still posting his drivel from his CT site I see.

Its comical, but also a bit sad, like watching a dog with a gimp leg trying to walk down the street

 

[Virus]

I can imagine Matt Giwer as like the stapler guy from Office Space. Except everyone gathers around the water cooler and talks about "the guy who always goes on about the Jews."

 

[Oliver]

Indeed. The Jews and all that damn *breathing* they do.

Uh, no. That certainly wasn't the point. But thanks for playing the race/ideology card by trying to make up a non-existing point ...

 

[mortimer]

Yes and I have.

Where?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Uh, no. That certainly wasn't the point. But thanks for playing the race/ideology card by trying to make up a non-existing point ...

So I take it you're completely unfamiliar with his posting history, here and elsewhere?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Where?

On JREF of course. Rather than a rehash the easiest way is to cite israeli news articles regarding the opinion of the highest legal authorities regarding the matter of occupation.

Doing this has the added benefit of showing the real opinion in Israel vice the contrived propaganda the izziehuggers try to foist off on the world. Izziehuggers are either ignorant of the subject they pontificate upon or they know they are lying. There is hardly a middle ground in the matter.

===

http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied.phtml

Israel's Supreme Court says the territories are occupied

Haaretz October 07, 2005
High Court bans IDF's `early-warning' practice
By Yuval Yoaz

...

However, the court rejected this argument. "The army is obliged to protect the life and dignity of the local resident sent to deliver the warning, even if he agrees to take this task upon himself and its implementation will not cause him any harm," wrote Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, with Justices Mishael Cheshin and Dorit Beinisch concurring. "This is partly because in practice, it is hard to judge when his consent was given freely and when it was the fruit or overt or covert pressure. A basic principle of the rules of belligerent occupation in international law is the prohibition on using protected residents as part of the army's military effort. The civilian population must not be exploited for the army's military needs.

...

=====

http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml

Haaretz
Sun., December 11, 2005 Kislev 10, 5766 Israel Time: 11:55 (EST+7)
Last update - 11:55 11/12/2005

High Court to hear petitions against targeted killings
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent

...

According to Nitzan, as a result of the end of Israeli military control in the Gaza Strip following the disengagement, Gaza is subject to the "law of war" under which the killings are legally permissible, rather than the "laws of occupation" or the "laws of belligerent occupation" that governed the area previously.

...

"On September 12, 2005, the last Israel Defense Forces soldier left the Gaza Strip," Nitzan wrote, "as a result of which the military regime that existed in Gaza since 1967 was ended. This change means that from that date the laws of belligerent occupation no longer apply[/b to the Gaza Strip. The state's position was and still is that the laws applying to targeted killings in a situation of armed conflict are those of war and not those of belligerent occupation."

...

=====

Of course then there is the 4th Geneva Convention describing the rights and responsibilities of the occupying power. This is the scam Israel previously tried to pull off, claiming the squattertowns were a military necessity for the defense of Israel. Now that people just snicker at that suggestion Israel in the proverbial "up a creek without a paddle" situation.

4th Geneva Convention

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

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

 

[bigjelmapro]

This article, although I cannot find it specifically by title (except a similar one written in the same year: High Court bans IDF's `early-warning' practice), that Matt's been spamming on various threads, has been used obfuscating the issue of the laws of occupation (which is stated to not be applicable in this artilce in regards to Gaza), the use of targetted killings, and the latest melding of issues together, settlements in the West Bank.

The is the last bit of the aforementioned article, which is important in its entirety rather than the poor hack job Matt attempted:
High Court bans IDF's `early-warning' practice

...
Following this decision, the hearings revolved primarily around a different IDF practice - using Palestinians to provide "early warnings" of impending arrest operations to the wanted men themselves, in the hope of persuading them to give themselves up peacefully, and to any civilians in the house, to enable them to leave before the military operation began. This practice had been approved by the attorney general, on the grounds, as government attorney Shai Nitzan wrote in response to the petitions, that "international law does not forbid receiving assistance from a local resident, with his consent, for the purpose of warning other residents about an expected attack."

However, the court rejected this argument. "The army is obliged to protect the life and dignity of the local resident sent to deliver the warning, even if he agrees to take this task upon himself and its implementation will not cause him any harm," wrote Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, with Justices Mishael Cheshin and Dorit Beinisch concurring. "This is partly because in practice, it is hard to judge when his consent was given freely and when it was the fruit or overt or covert pressure. A basic principle of the rules of belligerent occupation in international law is the prohibition on using protected residents as part of the army's military effort. The civilian population must not be exploited for the army's military needs.

"Given the inequality between the occupying force and the local resident, the local resident cannot be expected to oppose the request to give a warning to someone whom [the army] wants to arrest," Barak continued. "A procedure cannot be based on consent when, in many cases, this [consent] will not be genuine."

But Cheshin, in his concurring opinion, argued that despite the general ban on this practice, there could be cases in which it retroactively turned out to be justified.

So the issue is consent here, although I do agree that using these early-warning practices does put civilians in danger, while on the contrary, not using this method could possibly lead to more civilian deaths and collateral damage.

So pro's and con's.

 

[Matt Giwer]

This article, although I cannot find it specifically by title (except a similar one written in the same year: High Court bans IDF's `early-warning' practice), that Matt's been spamming on various threads, has been used obfuscating the issue of the laws of occupation (which is stated to not be applicable in this artilce in regards to Gaza), the use of targetted killings, and the latest melding of issues together, settlements in the West Bank.

The is the last bit of the aforementioned article, which is important in its entirety rather than the poor hack job Matt attempted:
High Court bans IDF's `early-warning' practice

So the issue is consent here, although I do agree that using these early-warning practices does put civilians in danger, while on the contrary, not using this method could possibly lead to more civilian deaths and collateral damage.

So pro's and con's.

None of which negates the fact of the court taking notice of the territories being under belligerent occupation which is the sole point in contention in this discussion.

The point of course is that it is a war crime for the occupation troops to use human shields. The excuse of the cowardly IDF troops has never been accepted by the Israeli courts which have always declared the practice to be illegal.

If Israel pretends to have a serious case in the matter of saving lives, something never demonstrated to be fact, Israel could, as a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention, propose a codicil to it which would exempt the technique from being a violation of the Convention. That it has not speaks for itself.

For the record, targeted killing is known as cold blooded murder to the rest of the world.

 

[bigjelmapro]

None of which negates the fact of the court taking notice of the territories being under belligerent occupation which is the sole point in contention in this discussion.

Nobody here is arguing against this. As I've stated before, and will so again since you are a bit slow on the uptake, Gaza is not under this 'belligerent occupation', as stated in the article. This additionally, does not apply to PA administered areas in the WB which the IDF do not go into. As far as I know, there hasn't been issues of these 'targetted killings' in the WB for quite some time now, thanks, mainly to the PA police finally clamping down on these groups who commit terrorist actions.

So again, you're arguing with yourself.

The point of course is that it is a war crime for the occupation troops to use human shields. The excuse of the cowardly IDF troops has never been accepted by the Israeli courts which have always declared the practice to be illegal.

Which isn't the issue in the articles you and I posted, but the issue of early warning. Human shields, ie, sending in neighbors to check for booby traps shouldn't be used, and hasn't been proven to be standard operating procedure by the higher ups in the IDF as has been the case with using these 'early warnings'.

I do find it strangely amusing that you would label those who don't get head-first into a possible booby-trapped building as 'cowards'.

If Israel pretends to have a serious case in the matter of saving lives, something never demonstrated to be fact, Israel could, as a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention, propose a codicil to it which would exempt the technique from being a violation of the Convention. That it has not speaks for itself.

4th Geneva convention states nothing along the lines of putting the lives of one's soldiers over that of the civilians of the other side.

Perhaps you can cite how Israel hasn't minimized collateral damage, say to for instance, compared to the modus operandi with regards to US forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the practice of drone targetted killings in Pakistan. Can you guess what the death ratio is to the target versus the 'acceptable' amount of collateral damage? Its about 10 times higher for the US compared to Israel. Israel abides more by the law of proportionality than the US forces do. But then again, the IDF operate in areas that are well known to them, hence this would definitely minimize IDF casaulties, which can't be said for US forces who often rely on 'local guides' for intel.

Here's an interesting article about that in respect to a certain case: ‘Haaretz’ could not be more wrong – or misleading

For the record, targeted killing is known as cold blooded murder to the rest of the world.

Nope. Targetted killing is a method used only when all other methods are exhausted, ie arrest. Its a method that should, if employed properly, kill certain high-priority targets while minimizing collateral damage, compared to, for instead carpet bombing an entire town in hopes that said targets would die in a ball of flame with a boatload of civilians. If it prevents attacks against Israelis and minimizes collateral damage on their side, I'm all for it. Unless you can counter with how this wouldn't be advantageous to the IDF.

Another concept that you don't understand. Not a surprise.

 

[mortimer]

On JREF of course. Rather than a rehash the easiest way is to cite israeli news articles regarding the opinion of the highest legal authorities regarding the matter of occupation.

Doing this has the added benefit of showing the real opinion in Israel vice the contrived propaganda the izziehuggers try to foist off on the world. Izziehuggers are either ignorant of the subject they pontificate upon or they know they are lying. There is hardly a middle ground in the matter.

===

http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied.phtml

Israel's Supreme Court says the territories are occupied

Haaretz October 07, 2005
High Court bans IDF's `early-warning' practice
By Yuval Yoaz

...

However, the court rejected this argument. "The army is obliged to protect the life and dignity of the local resident sent to deliver the warning, even if he agrees to take this task upon himself and its implementation will not cause him any harm," wrote Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, with Justices Mishael Cheshin and Dorit Beinisch concurring. "This is partly because in practice, it is hard to judge when his consent was given freely and when it was the fruit or overt or covert pressure. A basic principle of the rules of belligerent occupation in international law is the prohibition on using protected residents as part of the army's military effort. The civilian population must not be exploited for the army's military needs.

...

=====

http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml

Haaretz
Sun., December 11, 2005 Kislev 10, 5766 Israel Time: 11:55 (EST+7)
Last update - 11:55 11/12/2005

High Court to hear petitions against targeted killings
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent

...

According to Nitzan, as a result of the end of Israeli military control in the Gaza Strip following the disengagement, Gaza is subject to the "law of war" under which the killings are legally permissible, rather than the "laws of occupation" or the "laws of belligerent occupation" that governed the area previously.

...

"On September 12, 2005, the last Israel Defense Forces soldier left the Gaza Strip," Nitzan wrote, "as a result of which the military regime that existed in Gaza since 1967 was ended. This change means that from that date the laws of belligerent occupation no longer apply[/b to the Gaza Strip. The state's position was and still is that the laws applying to targeted killings in a situation of armed conflict are those of war and not those of belligerent occupation."

...

=====

Of course then there is the 4th Geneva Convention describing the rights and responsibilities of the occupying power. This is the scam Israel previously tried to pull off, claiming the squattertowns were a military necessity for the defense of Israel. Now that people just snicker at that suggestion Israel in the proverbial "up a creek without a paddle" situation.

4th Geneva Convention

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

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

What you have posted here does nothing to support the claim you made. Perhaps you should go back, read your own claim, and then attempt to support that claim with evidence.

 

[Matt Giwer]

What you have posted here does nothing to support the claim you made. Perhaps you should go back, read your own claim, and then attempt to support that claim with evidence.

It was my strong impression you were asking after evidence that the territories were occupied in the military sense. I presented that. If not occupation what were you asking about?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Quote:
For the record, targeted killing is known as cold blooded murder to the rest of the world.

Nope. Targetted killing is a method used only when all other methods are exhausted,

Yes, that is why it is called cold blooded murder.

Sheik Yassin, a paraplegic former threat to the existence of Israel

aka We are ALL Klinghofers now.
​

And here is one of a guy in a wheelchair trying to outrun a tank.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Nobody here is arguing against this. As I've stated before, and will so again since you are a bit slow on the uptake, Gaza is not under this 'belligerent occupation', as stated in the article. This additionally, does not apply to PA administered areas in the WB which the IDF do not go into. As far as I know, there hasn't been issues of these 'targetted killings' in the WB for quite some time now, thanks, mainly to the PA police finally clamping down on these groups who commit terrorist actions.

So again, you're arguing with yourself.

You be sure to contact the judges in Israel so the next time when they say occupied they make a clear distinction of exactly where it applies. As we know the world makes no such distinction nor does the Israeli courts. So we are left to rely upon your expert legal interpretation of what the court really meant.

OTOH if you had taken the time to follow the news in your own country you would know your IDF enters the PA administered areas every damned day often leaving the impression that it is just to show they can. Therefore there is no place the IDF does not enter and thus does not control and thus is not occupied.

Why do you Israelis tell so many lies about your country which you know are so easily exposed?

Speaking of the PA police your IDF does not let them enter the parts even your false statements admits are occupied to arrest known criminal Palestinians. You IDF works at making it hard for the PA to keep the peace.

Both the above have been the subject of complaint to George Mitchell. I presume you know who he is no matter what you pretend to answer.

 

[Matt Giwer]

4th Geneva convention states nothing along the lines of putting the lives of one's soldiers over that of the civilians of the other side.

It is much more general than that, true. It forbids the use of the people in the occupied territory from being used in any military operation. It does not mention a difference between voluntary and involuntary and the court ridiculed the idea that anything could be voluntary when asked by armed men no matter how polite they may phrase the question.

But you know that.