|
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
Unilateral Annexation, and Collective Punishment, illegal under the geneva convention, great anti-terrorism tactics right.... |
two points...
first annexation.
i dont think that annexation falls under the jurisdiction of the geneva convention but i'm too lazy to go read up on that. however i assume you're talking about the annexation of the west bank. Under the 1947 partitions plan - which the jews accepted and arabs rejected - the west bank was to have been part of an independent arab state in western palestine. But the Jordanian army invaded and occupied it during the 1948 war. in 1950 jordan annexed the west bank. Only two governments, the UK and Pakistan, formally recognized the jordanian take over, the rest of the world never did. after the 1967 war israel occupied the west bank, and only annexed east jerusalem. it never annexed the gaza strip either. If you want to arguee about the annexation of east jerusalem, you're right, the legality of this is questionable... furthermore in a final peace plan i hope that israel gives it back to palestine.
now for collective punishment.
Israel is a signator to the geneva convention which forbids collective punishment. Israel is guilty of collective punishment measures such as demolishing the homes of families who's members committed terrorist acts. putting this into prospective you can admit that both sides are wrong, but not equally. I think the act of blowing oneself up in a cafe is far worse then the 'revenge' of demolishing a home. thus, the burden of guilt still lies on the terrorist. Further more the geneva convention is a contract, one which was not signed by the PA, or any of the terrorist organizations. thus if the the hamas (for example) commits acts outlawed by the convention (such as killing innocents) in theory israel does not have to obey the contract when dealing back at them.
___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.
|