or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Immanuel Goldstein

All what was shown rather clearly for now in that respect, was that the Geneva convention opposes transferring and deporting such citizens, not authorising their residence.
And citizens of the occupying power are authorised to reside in the occupied territory by the authority of that territory (i.e. the occupying power), and are treated under a different set of law than the occupied population; which is different from the case of diplomats. These are different situations in which different categories of people are treated under different sets of law.
No. I'm showing occurences where different categories of people are treated under different sets of laws.
Citizens of the occupying powers would be treated under a different set of laws than soldiers of the occpying powers, and again differently than the occupied population. And in your country, diplomats of other countries are under a different set of law than you, so no need for obese words.Not quite. As you wrote:“From Article 49: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Israelis were neither...
So here you single out the US, I see it more as a common disregard for international law by most countries.
You could also ask that the law of the land be implemented without the existence of actual sovereign power on that land. If enforcement of international law depends on the sovereign states themsleves they will only respect it if pressured or coerced to it by more powerful states or when it otherwise suits their interests.
Apartheid treated and segregated people people according to “racial” categories, whatever wrong there is in the settlment entrteprise (and there is), to com,pare it with Apartheid is either ignorance or propaganda or both.So no need to add what is not there.Does international law actually states that Jews are forbidden from living in the occupied territories? If so, then screw intermnational law.State land is owned by the state which happens to de-facto rule unattributed...
If your short novel about the adventures of Mssrs. Alphabet was destined to me, I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow; quite a confusing text.
The more someone uses South-African terminology about Middle-Eastern conflicts the less seriously I take him. The settlers' entreprise was a foolish one and the state involvement in it was mistaken; the settlers enjoying Israeli ex-territoriality in the West Bank is a peak of idiocy. But it's also foolish to argue that Israeli Jews living there is a crime.No scope was changed,you asked further explanation and got it. We talked about “stolen land”, and that can only apply...
As I replied to you in one of my messages above: in its current state, international law is as good as nothing.For such improvement to happen, international law needs to emanate from a permanent sovereign authority, both independent from UN member states and overriding all states' sovereignty, and a strong permanent standing army to actively enforce international law on states, and particularly to oppose any further genocide. Bascially: to have a real international law you...
New Posts  All Forums: