|
Two things clearly wrong with this article: the assertion that they are terriosts, and the general bias inherent in the detail towards that assertion.
This needs re-wording with a little more unbiased background.
--Pete Richardson 14:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have done my best to replace "terrorist" with militant or guerrilla, and refer to how they are engaging in armed resistace to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. I also compared the US responses to the killing of the diplomats and the murder of Rachel Corrie.
If four massive Israeli tanks were accompaning the US convoy, how do we know the PRC guerrillas weren't targeting the tanks, presumably making the diplomats (in US military jargon, although I HATE this phrase) "collateral damage"?
Kingal86 20:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why does jayig think Rachel Corrie was killed accidently by an Israeli occupation soldier? She was trying to stop the war crime of wanton destruction, by protecting a civilian house from US-made buldozeers. All the eyewitnesses state that Rachel Corrie was clearly visible, and would have been clearly visible, and that the soldier ran her over deliberately. Moreover why have the US government made no comment? If an American civilian had been killed by a British soldier in Northern Ireland, even by accident, the Americans would have gone crazy!
Kingal86 19:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Regarding the tanks, interesting theory, has anyone else ever suggested it, or is it original research? Regarding Corrie, read the article for details of why it happened, but a terrorist group blowing up a diplomatic convoy accompanied by military support is nothing like an American activist getting run over after playing cat and mouse for an extended period of time with a bulldozer. NPOV doesn't mean including information not relevant to the page in order to make the "other side" look bad too. Jayjg 19:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The tank thing was just a suggestion. I'm not sure what happened. I agree with you you in one way: a soldier running over and killing a civilian who is nowhere near a military target is definently nothing like a guerrilla blowing up a diplomatic convoy surrounded by military targets. BTW, Jayig, do you consider the Popular Resistance Committees to be terrorist groups because they have committed war crimes, or because they dare to engage in armed resistance to a foreign military occupation at all?
Kingal86 17:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neither, and I don't appreciate being strawmanned. I consider them terrorists because they deliberately target civilians for political purposes. Jayjg 14:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is not politicking to refer to Jewish colonial settlements on occupied land as being considered illegal by the UN. The UN and the majority of countries consider the settlements a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Even the USA officially considers them illegal (although it doesn't act like it) It is a war crime for a government to transfer its civilian population onto occupied land. Of course, this doesn't make unarmed civilian settlers/colonists legitimate military targets, despite the claims of several Palestinian armed resistance groups.
Kingal86 20:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is politicking because it's not relevant. The linked article on Israeli settlements already discusses the legality of them. Moreover, it's silly; are we now going to have a rule that any time any settlement is mentioned on Wikipedia, it must be followed by a list of opinions saying it is illegal, and list saying it is not, to preserve NPOV? No, that's what links are for. As for the U.S. government, it does not officially consider them "illegal"; show me the document outlining that. And your misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention is also not relevant; the Talk: pages are not for arguing whether or not the settlements are legal. Jayjg 21:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What misunderstanding of the Geneva Conventions? Article 49 of the Fourt Geneva Convention of 1949 states, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."-Kingal86 23:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The provisions only apply to "High Contracting Parties". Who are the "High Contracting Parties" in this case? Jayjg 23:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
These parts of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to an Occupying Power who is a High Contracting Party. In this case, it is Israel. It doesn't require that there is another High Contracting Party or state on the other side (although Egypt--who previously controlled Gaza, and Jordan--who previously controlled the West Bank, and Britain--who previously controlled all of pre-1948 Palestine--are also allHigh Contracting Parties). That would be ridiculous since occupations usually involve the overthrow of a government (thereby eliminating a High Contracting Party), and often annexation (therby eliminating the state).
Numerous UN resolutions and decisions of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions have reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem (and the Syrian Golan Heights). Kingal86 00:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please read this: [1] (http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf). Jayjg 03:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That won't convince me, just as I don't think articles on international law supporting the Palestinian cause would convince you. Especially since this view is at odds with the views of almost the entire world. And who decides whether another country is occupying land in "self defence". Most countries claim to invade other countries in self defence. Kingal86 13:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The issue is not particularly relevant to whether or not the 4th Geneva conventions apply in this case. The territories are a non-state; thus there is no High Contracting Party. We're talking about International Law here, not political posturing in the General Assembly or by pro-Palestinian groups. Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention states that it applies "from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2." Article 2 states that it applies: (1) "to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties," or (2) "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party". Condition (1) does not apply because Israel is not at war or in armed conflict with any High Contracting Party with respect to the West Bank and Gaza. Condition (2) does not apply because the West Bank and Gaza have never been a legally recognized part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. Moreoever, the phrases on population transfer are intended to deal with involuntary transfer of populations into a territory, not voluntary movement of Israelis into the terrorities. Here's another legal opinion: [2] (http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2004/aug/03_13.html); note, legal opinion, not appeal to emotion. Jayjg 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And if Israel considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be under legitimate Israeli control, why wasn't the Palestinian population given the vote and citizenship instead of having to live under military dictaorship since 1967? Moreover the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Therefore Palestinian refugees have a right of return to Israel, and Jews expelled by Arab countries also have a right of return. Kingal86 13:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- These are separate issues, that are not relevant to the point at hand, so I'll only respond briefly. Regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNGA is not an International Law-making body. Moreover, only a tiny fraction of those currently designated as Palestinian Refugees have actually "left their country", since the vast majority either still live there (in the territories), or were never born there (anyone under 56 years of age, which would include over 90% of Palestinians). Even if the Declaration were law, and it applied in this case (neither of which are true), I estimate under 100,000 Palestinians would qualify under this provision. Jayjg 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then a campaign of ethnic cleansing, stealing people's houses, the immigration of millions of Jews (who, like many of Palestinians living abroad, were also never born in what is now Israel but have been given a "right of return" by the Israeli government regardless) to create an artificial Jewish majority was fine then, was it?
In fact why should Jews who were not not born in the Holy Land, many of whom are not related to people who were, be allowed to "return" to the ancestral homeland (some of) their distant ancestors left or were deported from thousands of years ago, when Palestinian refugees and their descendants are not being allowed to return to the homes they left or were deported from in 1948? Kingal86 00:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Israel has a "Law of Return", not a "Right of Return". It is a local law, which applies to most Jews and some non-Jews as well. It is not International Law. Other countries like Germany have similar laws. As for the rest, do you wish to discuss your view of Israeli history, your views on morality, or International Law and the applicability of the 4th Geneva convention? I thought we were discussing the latter. Jayjg 08:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie paragraph
The following paragraph was removed:
The US response to the attack on diplomatic convoy by Palestinian guerrillas contrasts sharply with the killing of unarmed US civilian Rachel Corrie by an Israeli soldier in a US-made buldozer in the Gaza Strip. The buldozer had been attempting to demolish a Palestinian house, when Corrie tried to obstruct the buldozer. The US government appears to have made no response to this, even though eye-witnesses described the running over of the ISM activist as deliberate, and therefore a murder.
The reasons are:
- It is cleary POV and using an inflammatory rethorics.
- It is full of misinformation and conveying false information in order to incite hate.
- It is pretty much irrelevant to this article.
MathKnight 11:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
|
