Occasionally, one reads the stupefyingly moronic claim that, based on their victory in the Six-Day War, Israel is "entitled" to the territory it captured. In short, the suggestion is that, to the victors go the spoils (including the land).
Such aforementioned morons have clearly never read the Geneva Conventions, so let me spell it out for them in a way that even my cats could understand. And I quote (from Convention IV, Article 49, with the really good stuff emphasized for the thinking impaired):
Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Now, can we just knock off this shit about Israel "winning" the Gaza Strip or the West Bank? I can handle debating with the Right-Wing Wankerhood -- I just have no interest in teaching them how to read.
4 comments:
Part of the justification is that, since Israel didn't start the 1967 war, just defended themselves, they are entitled to it. They didn't try to take the land, they just ended up with it after they were done defending themselves. Like punitive damages.
(I don't agree with it, I'm just articulating it.)
I wonder what the Romans would think of the idea of not being allowed to wage war for territory or women.
By the way, who started it always depends on whose account you're reading, of course. One might say that a fairly neutral account might come from MSN Encarta, which writes:
In 1956 Israel overran Egypt in the Suez-Sinai War. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser vowed to avenge Arab losses and press the cause of Palestinian nationalism. To this end, he organized an alliance of Arab states surrounding Israel and mobilized for war. Israel preempted the invasion with its own attack on June 5, 1967.
Note the reference to preemption. Whether or not they had cause, that clearly suggests that Israel was the initiator.
As I said, though, who started it makes no difference when it comes to the Geneva Conventions.
Israel struck first on a tactical level, because it had no other choice. The armies massed against it, poised to attack, far outnumbered the puny IDF. By initiating the first stike, they won the key advantage against the arab armies who were itching for a fight. They got one.
Junker wrote:
"Israel struck first on a tactical level, because it had no other choice."
I'll tell you what. For the sake of argument, I'll just flat out give you that one -- that Israel had no choice and that they were provoked into it.
In exchange, I want your admission that, under the Geneva Conventions, Israel had absolutely no right to keep control over those occupied territories.
You've read my admission. Now let's see yours.
Post a Comment