Palestinian boy shot dead

[Monkie]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/42A7E710-15AF-46E5-B128-86B38B30455A.htm

"Palestinian boy shot dead
By Laila El-Haddad

Saturday 09 July 2005, 11:37 Makka Time, 8:37 GMT

A Palestinian boy was shot dead by an Israeli security guard in the West Bank, officials and witnesses said.

Fifteen-year-old Muheeb Ahmad Assi was pronounced dead at the scene after being shot by an Israeli security guard, according to Mohammad Hawani of the Sheikh Zayed Hospital in Ram Allah.
Hawani said Assi died of a bullet wound to his chest.
Witnesses said clashes broke out between Assi's group of friends and an Israeli security guard near a part of the separation barrier in the village of Beit Lakiya, where he lived.

The guard shot at them with live ammunition, and Assi was hit. Palestinians were not allowed near the teen until over an hour had passed, by which point the Assi had bled to death, medics said."

haaretz on same incident:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/597724.html

"An Israeli security man guarding the West Bank separation fence on Friday evening shot to death a 17-year-old Palestinian near the village of Beit Lakiya.

The teenager and his friends were throwing stones at the guards as they entered a parking area where heavy vehicles used for the construction of the fence are kept.
Palestinian witnesses reported Saturday that the boy was not involved in any skirmish with the guard but was rather busy working on his father's plot of land nearby.

Witnesses also said that after one of the guards opened fire and wounded the Palestinian, they did not allow vilage residents to get close to him.
When the ambulance arrived at the scene, the youth was already dead."

[Missy M]

1. Will this violence ever end? It is so sad a 17 year old had to die...

over throwing stones. It should have been handled differently.

[methinks2]

2. Of course it should have been handled another way

The sad truth is that most of these checkpoint people seem to be teenagers with pimples, hormones, and automatic weapons. They don't have the maturity to be allowed power over the life and death of others. But they are allowed and this is what happens.

[eyl]

4. Read it again

It wasn't at a checkpoint, and the shooter wasn't a soldier.

[Igel]

3. You don't throw stones at people carrying guns.

Sympathy for the kid's family, issues of thnicity and injustice, and squabbles over territory and religion all aside, it's a stupid thing to do, and automatically enters the kid in the Darwin Awards competition.

If stoning is so harmless, I suggest at the next political rally in town we all get together and throw stones--not pebbles--at the speaker. I doubt he'll think it a safe, fun way of blowing off steam. We'll be arrested at gunpoint and tried for battery, if not much worse.

Get enough people together throwing stones, and you have one archaic method for execution.

Of course, one could also say that either stoned people shouldn't carry guns, or people that carry guns shouldn't get stoned.

[Englander]

5. That's some sympathy you've got there;

So,is lethal force justified in every instance
where kids,or rioters,or demonstrators are throwing
stones at armed police,regardless of the fact that
those armed police are involved in illegal acts themselves?

_________________


'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Advisory Opinion


The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
the legal consequences arising from that illegality


THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

The Court responds to the question as follows:

“A. By fourteen votes to one,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

“B. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

“C. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

“D. By thirteen votes to two,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

“E. By fourteen votes to one,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”


http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm

[eyl]

6. Actually,

igil didn't address whether it was legitimate or not; only that it was stupid.

In any aevent, I'd be somewhat wary about basng legal arguments on the ICJ decision:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x90847#90883

(points 5-6 are particularly relevent here)

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Question about point 5...

I've got one question about point 5. What is the significance of the Green Line to the status of the West Bank as occupied territory?

As for point 6: The High Contracting Parties have stated that the Geneva Convention applies to the Occupied Territories, and I've seen no argument against it that's particularly convincing. The folk who wrote the convention had no way of seeing into the future and to me the Israeli stance comes across more as one of looking for technical loopholes in order to wiggle out of a very clear responsibility for the population of territory occupied by Israel...

Violet...

[eyl]

10. It doesn't effect the status, directly

but the extent of the territory which is occupied is..ambigous (hey, who said law had to be logical). And therefore, whether the Green Line must be observed in the matter of the barrier is not clear cut, in this respect (note - I might have accepted arguments that the clause was irrelevant or inapplicable, for whatever reason - but the decision never addressed the point at all beyond mentioning it)

As for point 6; first of all, it specifically refers to the argument used by the ICJ, not to that put forth by anyone else. Note, the ICJ decision never refers to the High Contracting Parties' determination in any way. It tries to make the case by itself, on the basis of the GC, and to my mind, at least, not especially convincingly (for the reasons I specified).

As for the applicability of the GC; I can't recall (the High Contracting Parties' declaration notwithstanding) any convincing argument why they do apply, beyond "because they do". The Conventions were specifically written to apply to states, and signatory states at that - and for good reason. The one exception is Section II of GC4 (which is also relevant to the point about avoiding responsibility for the population - it's a moot point, since that section always applies). The situation here, where the territory in question legally does not belong to any state, is somewhat unique, and was not anticipated by the framers. In order to legally apply the whole of GC4 to the OT, you have to concede the Jordanian annexation was legal - which would give Israel a precedent for annexation (and in any case, Jordan's relinquishment of sovereignty throws it all up back in the air). Otherwise, the text of GC4 (Articles II & IV) "disqualifies" the OT from being subject to the GC.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Where Israel ends and the OT begins...

From what I can see there doesn't seem to be all that much ambiguity to it. On the Israeli side of the Green Line, people tend to be citizens of Israel and their children born in Israel become Israeli citizens. On the other side of the Green Line, that's not the case. If I were to travel to Israel, the visa I get would allow me entry to Israel, but not the Occupied Territories (at least that's my understanding of how it works). And Israel itself has not claimed sovereignty over the West Bank (annexation of East Jerusalem being the exception) because while the Green Line is an armistace line, it is viewed internationally and within Israel as a border...

There's some very convincing arguments why the geneva conventions do apply to the occupied territories. First and foremost is that while the framers did not anticipate a situation where territory does not belong to any state, their intent when creating the conventions was to provide protection for all civilians in occupied territory, and it's pretty hard to imagine that they wouldn't have wanted that protection given to populations that are in territory that doesn't belong to a state.

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.

http://www.eccmei.net/E/E001.html

Violet...

[eyl]

20. The problem with that argument

which is the same one the ICJ uses, is that it ignores Article 4 of the Convention.

Consider the case of a conflict between three states. States A & B are signatories to the GC, but state C is not. If, as Sigler maintains, the GC is applicable to any conflict involving two (or more) signatories, it would also be applicable on C, because A & B
are both signatories. But that directly contradicts Article 4, which states (leaving out the last paragraph, which is not relevant to the discussion):

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

In addition, Article 13 states:

The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

IOW, there is a specific section to cover those not belonging to signatory states - therefore, that means there are populations to which the GC as a whole does not apply.

I also disagree with your statement that the framers intended the Conventions to be applied as widely as possible. One of the primary differences between domestic and international law is that the latter has no impartial enforcement mechanism. This is particularly important in the case of the laws of war. If my neighbor starts shooting at my house, I can call the police, who will presumably arrive and force him to desist. In the case of war, if state A breaks the laws of warfare, State B has little effective remedy available. The only equivalent body in international law is the UNSC. However, the UNSC is a political body, and therefore its enforcement of international law is subject to the interests (political, economic, and otherwise, including alliances with parties to the conflict) of its members, in particularly the permanent members. Even if the UNSC is inclined to act, it is likely not to do so in a timely manner, and its proclamations are often not enforced. Even if the ICC functioned as well as its most optimistic supporters envision, it still wouldn't be good enough; courts, by their nature, are suited to dealing punishment and reparations after the fact, but they generally do not function fast enough to prevent further violations in an ongoing situation - their resolutions can literally take years (note the glacial pace of existing international tribunals). The international system is particularly ineffective in the case that one of the parties considers its choices to be win or die (whether because it fears for the annihilation of its population in the case of defeat, or because it's a despotic regime whose leaders now they'll face firing squads in the case of defeat, or any similar scenario) - the leaders may be willing to take their chances on gaming the system once hostilities are over.

Because of that, the rules of war are designed to be somewhat self-enforcing. By limiting the applicability of the GCs to signatory states, and by the law of reprisals, which allows certain violations of the laws of war in response to a violation, non-signatories parties to a conflict have an interest to become signatories to the Conventions, and signatories have an interest in following them. Otherwise, to return to the example above, state B (the signatory) could have its (non-signatory) ally C do its "dirty work" - i.e. acts violating the laws of war that B is constrained from doing by the Conventions - but state C would still enjoy the full protection of the Conventions, just like B! (note that Article 2 is identical in all four Conventions - so if GC4 applies, all apply).

As for this

From what I can see there doesn't seem to be all that much ambiguity to it. On the Israeli side of the Green Line, people tend to be citizens of Israel and their children born in Israel become Israeli citizens. On the other side of the Green Line, that's not the case. If I were to travel to Israel, the visa I get would allow me entry to Israel, but not the Occupied Territories (at least that's my understanding of how it works). And Israel itself has not claimed sovereignty over the West Bank (annexation of East Jerusalem being the exception) because while the Green Line is an armistice line, it is viewed internationally and within Israel as a border...

If children born to the east of the Green Line were to receive citizenship, that situation would be unambiguous - it would be Israeli territory. AFAIK, you don't need a separate visa to enter the Territories. Israel hasn't annexed the Terrirtories for several reasons, but none of them have to do with the Line itself. And whether or not the Green Line is viewed as a border has no relevance on its legal status.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Article 2 deals with applicability of the Convention...

Israel's argument is that the Convention doesn't apply, so it's Article 2 where the focus lies. Article 4 deals with the definition of protected persons in occupied territory. And the first paragraph of Article 4 seems to me to apply to Palestinians (I'm going to try my hand at a table here)

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

The obvious question to me is seeing as how Palestinians in the Occupied Territories aren't nationals of any state (unless we take their nationality as being on passports held by Palestinians, in which case there'd be a plethora of nationalities), what piece of international humanitarian law gives people who aren't nationals of any state protection?

I also disagree with your statement that the framers intended the Conventions to be applied as widely as possible. One of the primary differences between domestic and international law is that the latter has no impartial enforcement mechanism. This is particularly important in the case of the laws of war.

The Fourth Geneva Convention is recognised as universal international law. The Genocide Convention is another piece of universal law. The fact is that those laws exist - it's the applicability that's the argument, not the ability to enforce the law. Something like 191 states are signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel being one of them. Israel originally accepted that it applied to the Occupied Territories, then backtracked on that (I'm guessing because accepting it as applying and constructing settlements weren't mutually acceptable)...

If children born to the east of the Green Line were to receive citizenship, that situation would be unambiguous - it would be Israeli territory. AFAIK, you don't need a separate visa to enter the Territories. Israel hasn't annexed the Terrirtories for several reasons, but none of them have to do with the Line itself. And whether or not the Green Line is viewed as a border has no relevance on its legal status.

It's legal status is that it's an armistice line, isn't it? I don't see how that makes the construction of a barrier within occupied territory legal, though. To me it's no more legal than if the Palestinians were to start building a wall within Israel because the armistice line isn't legally a border...

Violet...

[eyl]

22. Not exactly

Israel's argument is that the Convention doesn't apply, so it's Article 2 where the focus lies. Article 4 deals with the definition of protected persons in occupied territory. And the first paragraph of Article 4 seems to me to apply to Palestinians (I'm going to try my hand at a table here)

The entire Convention deals with the status and protections of protected persons. Therefore, Article 4, which limits that category, is quite relevant (look at it like this: Article 2 says "the Convention applies in these cases" and Article 4 says "except for these"). An analogous situation would be if you maintained that GC3 applied to all prisoners taken in a conflict involving two signatory states, ignoring the requirements for such status given in Article 4 of GC3. You can't just take the first Article, and ignore the qualifiers to it.

The only alternative is to say that, as per Article 2, GC4 applies to the Territories, but as per Article 4, it does not apply to the people living there. This would be absurd (though a case can be made that in some circumstances the other way around is possible - see Article 47), especially if you maintain the framers intended to place the welfare of civilian populations above the actions (such as signing/not signing the Conventions) of their States.

The obvious question to me is seeing as how Palestinians in the Occupied Territories aren't nationals of any state (unless we take their nationality as being on passports held by Palestinians, in which case there'd be a plethora of nationalities), what piece of international humanitarian law gives people who aren't nationals of any state protection?

Which was the point I originally made; AFAIK, there isn't any, at least as far as the Conventions go, with the exception of GC4 Part II. A situation such as this is ill-considered in international law; as a result, various parties and observers try to force existing law to fit, and in this case, I think they did so past the breaking point.

The Fourth Geneva Convention is recognized as universal international law. The Genocide Convention is another piece of universal law. The fact is that those laws exist - it's the applicability that's the argument, not the ability to enforce the law. Something like 191 states are signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel being one of them. Israel originally accepted that it applied to the Occupied Territories, then backtracked on that (I'm guessing because accepting it as applying and constructing settlements weren't mutually acceptable)...

AFAIK, Israel never accepted the applicability of the Conventions; it declared it would uphold the humanitarian requirements thereof by choice, not as a matter of law.

As for GC4 being "universal", if by that you mean "always in force", then IMO you're mistaken; otherwise, there would be no qualification (as per Article 4) of the populations protected by the Convention (that status would include any civilian), and Article 13 would also not exist, since the entire Convention would always be in force. My point regarding the self-enforcement requirements didn't directly address the question of applicability; rather, it was to show that there is reason to assume the framers of the Conventions (which, if you recall, were all created - in there present form - together) intended to limit the applicability of the Conventions, rather than expand it.

Its legal status is that it's an armistice line, isn't it? I don't see how that makes the construction of a barrier within occupied territory legal, though. To me it's no more legal than if the Palestinians were to start building a wall within Israel because the armistice line isn't legally a border...

Its legal status is that it is an armistice line, bot not a border. And again, in the viewpoint of international law, Israel is a sovereign territory, while the Territories are not.

In any event, even if the GC does apply, I've just gone over it, and I see nothing either allowing or prohibiting construction of structures by the Occupying Power in the Occupied Territory (actually, I was sure there was something on this, but I can't find it if it's there). Given that many of the provisions of GC4 may be suspended due to military necessity, it's reasonable to assume that military necessity would allow construction of defensive structures, even if it is normally prohibited.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. It does deal with applicability of the Convention...

This is where I found it:

PART I: General Provisions

Article 1: Respect for the Convention
Article 2: Application of the Convention
Article 3: Conflicts not of an international character
Article 4: Definition of protected persons
Article 5: Derogations
Article 6: Beginning and end of application
Article 7: Special agreements
Article 8: Non-renunciation of rights
Article 9: Protecting Powers
Article 10: Activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross
Article 11: Substitutes for Protecting Powers
Article 12: Conciliation procedure

http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/constitutions/un/e_un_geneva_convention_4.htm#Article%203

That'd be the reason why so much focus is on Article 2 when arguing about whether or not the Convention is applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip....

If there is no piece of international law to protect people living in occupied territory that isn't a state, shouldn't there be some law that affords them the same protection as if they were nationals of a state?

I read that Israel did accept the applicability of the Convention after the end of the war and then backtracked. I'll try and track down where I read it and check again...

What I mean by universal law is that the Geneva Conventions are one of the pieces of law that form a foundation that other law is built on...

On the point about Israel being a sovereign state while the occupied territories aren't. If international law only applies to sovereign states, then non-state actors that carry out attacks on civilians wouldn't be considered war criminals under international humanitarian law, wouldn't they?

Violet...

[eyl]

24. One by one

Article 1: Respect for the Convention
Article 2: Application of the Convention
Article 3: Conflicts not of an international character
Article 4: Definition of protected persons
Article 5: Derogations
Article 6: Beginning and end of application
Article 7: Special agreements
Article 8: Non-renunciation of rights
Article 9: Protecting Powers
Article 10: Activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross
Article 11: Substitutes for Protecting Powers
Article 12: Conciliation procedure

http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/constitutions/un/e_un_g...

That'd be the reason why so much focus is on Article 2 when arguing about whether or not the Convention is applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip....

Article 2 deals with the applicability of the Convention - but Article 4 qualifies Article 2 (again, if the Convention was always applicable, Articles 4 and 13 would not exist).

In other words, you could say the GC4 applies, but the Palestinians are not protected by it.

If there is no piece of international law to protect people living in occupied territory that isn't a state, shouldn't there be some law that affords them the same protection as if they were nationals of a state?

Whether there should be such a law doesn't mean there is one. Besides, you're not asking for protection equal to nationals of a state - you're asking for protection equal to that of natioals of a signatory state.

On the point about Israel being a sovereign state while the occupied territories aren't. If international law only applies to sovereign states, then non-state actors that carry out attacks on civilians wouldn't be considered war criminals under international humanitarian law, wouldn't they?

Possibly not. OTOH, they would be guilty of acts of murder and so forth. In any case, war crimes are things commited by individuals not by states, so the subject isn't exactly the same. Also, not all international law applies only to sovereign states; see GC4 Part II, for example.

I'll add that I feel the subjects of both stateless populations and terrorism are ill-considered under international law. The latter, at least, IMO requires a review and modification of the laws of war (the former arguably also requires something equivalent, but since AFAIK there are very few stateless populations in existence, and since whatever agreements are made likely woldn't be retroactive, it's likely not worth the effort)

[Violet_Crumble]

26. How I understand it...

Article 2 relates to the applicability of the Convention. In situations where the Convention applies (as it does in the Occupied Territories), Article 4 goes on to define protected people within the occupied territory. And the Palestinians are protected people according to Article 4, which says: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

I'd be interested in reading more on this, especially anything about the conferences that the High Contracting Parties have. But the bottom line is that the Israeli arguments that the Convention doesn't apply to the Occupied Territories are flawed and not at all convincing, and the motive for them arguing the way they do is clear. And because as you say it's not worth the effort to create international law to protect stateless populations, then using existing law to make sure they have some protection is the wisest thing to do...

Violet...

[eyl]

27. Except that

the next sentence explicitly says members of non-signatory states are not protected. Since the GCs were written in the paradigm of state interactions, they presume anyone not belonging to a non-signatory belongs to a signatory state. In the case of stateless populations, however, they don't fall into either category; but since being a signatory state requires an active step, by default they should fall into the non-signatory "camp".

[eyl]

25. Cross-posted

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=95482&mesg_id=95797">here

Rephrase that to the ICJ isn't supposed to rewrite international treaties..."

The ICJ rewrote (at at least, took extreme liberties with) both GC4 (as we're discussing on the other thread) and Article 51 of the UN Charter, at the very least.

Regarding your point about the settlements - (whatever their legality - which I won't go into here) I specifically discussed the situation in Jerusalem - where the majority of deviations from the line occur. The article this thread is based on complains about the separation of Palestinians from services in Jerusalem, many of which are located in West Jerusalem. So your proposal is to cut off even more? Second, as I also noted, placing the wall on the Line would imperil West Jerusalem, as well as placing the Jewish Quarter, the Hebrew University, and other neighborhoods at risk. Lastly, once again, there are places where for topographical reasons the barrier cannot be placed on the Line; and moving it west is not an option because that would leave the communities it's supposedly protecting to the east of it.

As for Ariel, it's not even as far east as West Jerusalem; it doesn't come anywhere near cutting the WB in half.

[Lithos]

33. Applicability

AFAIK, Israel never accepted the applicability of the Conventions; it declared it would uphold the humanitarian requirements thereof by choice, not as a matter of law.

Israel has by defacto accepted this as a basis of law. There was a fairly significant decision handed down by the Israeli High Court of Justice debating the intentions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1993's ruling HCJ 785/87, AFFO ET AL. v. COMMANDER OF IDF FORCES IN THE WEST BANK.

There discussion was not with the applicability of this Convention, but in the language involving whether it covered individual deportations versus group deportations.

In any event, even if the GC does apply, I've just gone over it, and I see nothing either allowing or prohibiting construction of structures by the Occupying Power in the Occupied Territory (actually, I was sure there was something on this, but I can't find it if it's there). Given that many of the provisions of GC4 may be suspended due to military necessity, it's reasonable to assume that military necessity would allow construction of defensive structures, even if it is normally prohibited.

There are several items concerning this. First, while there are allowances for construction for necessary military means (protection, etc.), the settlement (which would imply construction for civilian means) of an occupied territory is considered a violation.

Also, some of the activities of the IDF do amount to violations of various Hague and Geneva Convention articles. For instance:

Hague Conventions

Article 46 which states private property may not be confiscated. This happened numerous times where land was obtained from Palestinians and given to Jewish settlers.

Protocol I (Addition to the Conventions - 1977)

Article 52 which states that it is illegal to conduct reprisals against civilian objects (houses, facilities, etc.). This would apply to the destruction of Palestinian homes of suicide bombers and terrorists as a reprisal for their activities.

Article 54 which governs the protection of Civilian objects necessary to the survival of the population. One specific item concerns the availability of water for irrigation. There is a strong case for this as the government of Israel has thru "legal" fiat altered pre-war distribution of water to the Palestinians in favor of Israeli's.

Of course several groups ostensibly representing the Palestinians have also violated several of these conventions (concerning the attacking and targeting of civilians - Hamas' recent rocket attacks certainly qualify for instance), the use of paramilitaries, and the execution of POW's. Not that this excuses any behavior though and it would be a red herring by either side to claim the other's behavior justifies their actions.

L-

[eyl]

34. Well

1) Israel accepted it as a guideline - i.e., the gocernment said it would follow the humanitarian part of the Conventions, and therefore the High Court can use those Conventions to assess government actions. It should be noted that in the case you referred to, the High Court also found that the Geneva Conventions did not form a part of international customary law, and thus conferred rights and duties on states, not individuals (there's a lengthy discussion of this starting around page 45 of the judgement (it's a bit hard to find exactly where it starts).

2) Your point on the Hague Conventions, while relevant to cases were private Palestinian property was confiscated for the purpose of settlements, is not relevant to the issue of the barrier, which is what we were discussing.

3) Protocol I is also irrelevant, as Israel is not a signatory to it.

[Lithos]

35. Fourth Convention

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151082001?open&of=ENG-PSE

Background
The present Conference of the 189 High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 has been called by the Swiss Government, the repository of the Geneva Conventions, and will take place on 5 December 2001. The Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of the civilian population in time of war.

Israel -- which signed the conventions on 8 December 1949 and ratified them on 6 July 1951 -- has reportedly said that it would not attend the High Contracting Parties' meeting. Israel has also stated that it does not regard the Geneva Conventions as applying de jure to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories occupied in 1967. In a statement made before the Committee against Torture in November 2001 in Geneva, the Israeli delegation also argued that the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment did not apply to the Occupied Territories because they were governed by the Geneva Conventions. The United Nations has consistently stated that both international human rights and humanitarian law apply.

The reasoning I've long read is Israel maintains the OT has never legitmately belonged to a sovereign nation. Part of this reasoning went that Jordan illegally annexed territory belonging to the still-born Palestinian state defined by the 1947 Partition and that because this state doesn't exist, there is no sovereign authority for this territory and Israel is thus holding it "in trust" for the Palestinians.

However, this reasoning overlooks this territory is not a part of Israel, and that no matter who has sovereign control of this territory, Israel would be under full obligations by the Fourth Convention as an occupying power. In essence, Israel is defending the right of a colonizing power to maintain control over extra-territorial holdings.

In this light, Israel's position is an almost exact mirror of France's stance during the Algerian insurrection of 1954-1962.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/algeria.html

One interesting twist to this is that what is the military necessity of building this fence if the West Bank is not under belligerent occupation?

[eyl]

36. As I explained above

As I understand the Conventions, since the Territories were never (legitimately) part of a signatory state, only Part II of GC4 applies to them. Also, note that Israel has not maintained the Territories as a whole are part of it - otherwise, it would have annexed them (not just Jerusalem). Therefore, the comparison with Algeria is not quite accurate.

In any event, I fail to see how belligerent occupation is a requirement for an element of military necessity.

[Lithos]

38. Algeria

Algeria was considered at one time part of Metropolitan France. The fact was the French considered the FLN and other resistance groups as not acting as part of an active resistance and as a result were not governed by the Conventions for belligerency. The US has done that as well w/r to Iraq following the cessation of hostilities (Mission Accomplished).

[eyl]

40. Exactly my point

For the Most part, the Territories aren't considered to be part of Israel.

[bennywhale]

37. Would you obey everything someone with a gun told you to do. In spite

of anything they were doing, just because they had a gun you would not stand up to them.

Thats some spine you've got there to go with your sympathy.

[eyl]

39. No,

but I wouldn't attack him without urgent cause either

[Igel]

7. I feel sorry for the kid's family.

He went and got killed. Maybe he thought he was being a hero; maybe he thought he was being adult. Now he's simply dead, however that's taken by his peers and compatriots.

Lethal force may not have been justified; I wasn't there, I don't know how armored the soldiers were, or how big the stones were. I assume somebody will investigate and uncover additional facts. I assume he'll be held up as a martyr, and that calls for revenge have already ensued.

But assaulting somebody that's armed is not the wisest thing to do. Soldiers can make reasonable mistakes. But soldiers can get pissed off and do incredibly wrong, but all too human, things. This was likely one of the latter.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. 'He went and got killed'?

That's kind of placing some sort of blame on him for being killed in the same way as saying 'she went and got raped' places the onus on the rape victim, imo...

He was shot by a security guard, not a soldier, btw...

Violet...

[eyl]

11. A security guard he was attacking..

(note - security guards usually don't have protective armor, and a stone to the head is easily crippling or lethal)

[Englander]

12. Just imagine what a bullet will do.

Stone-throwing is not a capital offense.

Or,it shouldn't be in countries that claim to
'liberal democracies',& end up looking like they're
competing to be the World's No.1 Pariah State..

[eyl]

14. If the boy was far enough

so that the stones he threw could not hit - then the shooting was completely unjustified. OTOH - if the guard was within stone range - then the stone-throwers initiated the use of lethal force.

[Igel]

18. No, it merely means he engaged in a series of actions which

culminated in his death. It doesn't assign blame, except to say that if he did a different set of actions he wouldn't have been killed. But that's a no brainer. At least that's the way I understood the expression.

"He got killed" would be just a single change of state, not a series of actions leading up to a change of state.

I guess "He got himself killed" or "He went and got himself killed" might show more responsibility, but it's still not explicitly assigning blame.

[Englander]

13. Of course it's not the wisest thing to do;

That doesn't mean it's wrong,or shouldn't happen.
I've never thrown stones or been involved in
a violent demo,but I'm bloody glad that my ancestors
did - it's one of the reasons why we have universal
suffrage in Britain,that didn't happen by chance,one
of the reasons is because there was violent protest.

There's no justification for shooting rioters.
Lethal force should be the last resort,& any member
of the security forces of any country who shoots an
unarmed teenager should find themselves in court on
a manslaughter charge.

Recent riots in Britain - you'll notice there's no
mention of anyone being shot;

'Youths injure police in riot

09 July 2005

SEVERAL police were injured and a number of arrests made as a result of overnight disturbances in Londonderry.

One officer required hospital treatment as police were assaulted with bricks, bottles and pieces of scaffolding by a crowd of youths as they responded to a call on the Strand Road.

Police received a report of a serious assault outside licensed premises on the Strand Road at around 2am. But when they arrived at the scene officers were met by an angry mob. Missiles were hurled by youths and a nearby scaffolding pulled down and also used to attack police.'

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northwest_edition/story.jsp?story=651807


'Riot police hem in protesters' camp

Kirsty Scott
Friday July 8, 2005
The Guardian

Protesters planning fresh disruption to the G8 summit yesterday found themselves hemmed into their camp by a ring of riot police as officers tried to avoid a repeat of Wednesday's clashes and travel chaos.

Police surrounded the eco-camp at Stirling in the early hours, allowing people to leave only if they could prove they had a legitimate and peaceful reason to do so.

The camp, which houses about 2,000 demonstrators, is thought to have been the base for about 200 hardline anarchists who blocked roads and damaged property in the area on Wednesday morning.

Arrests were made after officers searching people leaving the camp found weapons including metal bars, wooden poles studded with nails, lock knives and, in one case, pepper spray. Police later withdrew their cordon but said they would reinstate it if there were further signs of trouble.'

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/development/story/0,15709,1523970,00.html

[eyl]

15. I'm sure policemen everywhere

are happy to know you consider their lives expendable.

[Englander]

16. I was going to reply to this one....

then I realised it would be pointless.

[eyl]

17. suit yourself n/t

[pelsar]

28. Englander..poor example

Protesters planning fresh disruption to the G8 summit yesterday found themselves hemmed into their camp by a ring of riot police as officers tried to avoid a repeat of Wednesday's clashes and travel chaos.

note that is was the police that "hemmed" in the protesters..meaning the police were in control....poor example...in the above case in israeli this was not the case
__________________________________________________
but more to the point:

shooting at stone throwers..
actually its quite the "standard" for military personal (not police) to shoot at stone throwers..police have a different mind set, in that their general environment is peaceful with violence as the exception...for army personal its the exact opposite, violence is whats expected and their training in non lethal methods as well as equipment is far less (israeli guards are almost always ex combat soldiers)...

and for those who have never had stones thrown via slingshots or otherwise....they can blind and kill

but more to the point....democracies and their armies tend to view stones as lethal weapons and shoot when they feel threatened (even if there are not stones being thrown)
__________________________________

a short list of the worlds democracies show quite a few times when faced with stones being thrown or even just simple protest, the standard response is with bullets:

Nov 6-9 2005 France forces in the Ivory Coast killing at least 60

http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/france_ivory_coast

US during the Kent State Protests: 1970 4 killed by bullets

the brits in N. Ireland...have more than their share of shooting in N. Ireland:
On 4 November 1971 Emma Groves lost both her eyes after a soldier fired a rubber bullet into her living room from close range...

and of course bloody sunday being the most famous one

http://againstsleepandnightmare.com/wildcat/w15-ireland.html

Indonesia, India the democracies also has too many too list

and i have not even included the "newer democracies" which seem to have more lethal reactions as well.

and on top of that the israeli guard was arrested....something that rarely happens in other democracies.....


What that guard did, may or may not have been wrong, feeling that your life is threatened is a very individual feeling, that nobody else can know...but what is certain, is that his response was very very similar to those in the French, British, American, India, Indonesian, etc armies......

[Englander]

29. No,it was a topical & appropriate example to cite.

I looked for examples of riots,that occured this month,
in Britain/Ulster.

If you read all of the Guardian article about the G8 'anarchists'
you see that the attempted riot was on the Wednesday,& you'll see
that there is no mention of anyone getting shot in that attempted
riot.

___________________

--"actually its quite the "standard" for military personal (not police) to shoot at stone throwers."

If it is,that is another reason for soldiers not to be used
to quell riots,that military personnel should not be deployed
in the place of riot police.

--"and for those who have never had stones thrown via slingshots or otherwise....they can blind and kill"

Y'think? Maybe that's why riot police wear protective clothing,
& carry big shields.

_______________________________

The examples you cite here,are not relevant or topical
imo.

The horrific case in the Cote d'Ivoire was not a riot,
it was an incident in a war-zone*

Kent State,Bloody Sunday &tc were over 35 years ago,
and are not relevant,unless you want to measure the actions
of the security forces of the GOI against the standards that
Western Democracies were using 35 years ago.

________________

*
Sunday, 7 November, 2004, 10:50 GMT

French 'killed Ivorian civilians'

Ivory Coast has accused French troops of killing unarmed civilians to avenge the death of nine French peacekeepers.

Parliament speaker Mamadou Coulibaly said the French had killed 30 people and wounded more than 100 in the main cities of Abidjan and Yamassoukro.

The French have denied this - saying they fired warning shots on protesters near Abidjan airport and a French base.

French citizens were attacked after French forces destroyed five Ivorian government aircraft.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3989765.stm

'Q&A: Ivory Coast's crisis

Ivory Coast, previously West Africa's richest country, has been divided between north and south - between rebels and the national army - since September 2002.

The two sides have agreed a peace deal leading to elections but many obstacles remain before the country can be reunited.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3567349.stm

[pelsar]

30. wrong numbers wrong environments..

how many police were on hand during the G8?....and the fact is that they are police not military makes them useless as an example.

and yes I agree in that police are better trained at such disturbances with better equipment, but that was not the case here, the police was not and are not present in war zones....they re not equiped for it (bullets tend to go through those plastic shields)

but this statement i found interesting:
The horrific case in the Cote d'Ivoire was not a riot,
it was an incident in a war-zone*...

since the palestenians use RPGs, machine guns, AK-47, bombs, rockets, mortors, sniper rifles,...er what part of these weapons are not part of a war zone...

...sometimes they're just rocks, sometimes their peaceful and sometimes we get shot at....the palestenains dont really tell us just which is type of protest their doing at any given time and even then they dont always have full control...

btw: there were actual videos of the french shooting at the crowd....

[Englander]

31. Heh?

We're talking at cross-purposes here,I think.

The terms of reference I've been using all along
have been those mentioned in the article,that an
kid who was/n't throwing stones was shot dead by
a security guard,& I've used examples of similar
incidents.

I don't know how you made the leap from stone-throwing
kids to "rpgs,machine guns..&tc" but it is very revealing.
Just not relevant.

--"btw: there were actual videos of the french shooting at the crowd"

I know,I just copied the first couple of paragraphs
from the BBC article,I wasn't making any point about
whether the French troops had killed civilians or not,
just providing some context.

[pelsar]

32. englander..

i think i (you) are missing each other...lets let this one die and find a different subject to argue/discuss