Thursday, April 25, 2013

News the HP Doesn't Cover: French Court Rules Occupation Legal

It's not like we didn't already know this, but it's good to see a legal ruling solidify Israeli arguments. From autotranslated French:

Here is a study that friends of Israel must be preserved carefully in their archives.  France is not neutral in the conflict, and the judgment of the Court is of particular importance.
Veolia and Alstom built, following a call for tenders, the Jerusalem tramway through the city to the east, into the territories claimed by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.
The PLO considers that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and continues an illegal Jewish settlement in the building of the tram and is itself unlawful.
The legal arguments of the PLO removed one after another
Organization for the Liberation of Palestine has therefore embarked on a lengthy trial that just ended before the Court of Appeal of Versailles, March 13, 2013, by an overwhelming so inconvenient conclusions were spent hammering totally under silenced by the mainstream media to inform you loaded independently.
The occupation of Palestinian territory is not illegal
The PLO is based on international law and considers that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian territory and is pursuing an illegal Jewish settlement. The construction of the tram and itself illegal. In support, the PLO alleges infringement of several texts:
  • Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 which states that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
  • Article 53, which states that "it is forbidden for an occupying power to destroy the real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, the State or public authorities and social or cooperative organizations except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. "
The PLO added that the construction has caused destruction, virtually removing the 60 vital road for Palestinians and their goods, removal of tracks and paths, and expropriations. There had therefore been a violation of several articles from the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907
  • Article 23 (g) which prohibits "destroy or seize the enemy's property except where such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war"
  • Article 27 that "in sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals ..."
  • and Article 46, which states that "private property can not be confiscated."
Finally, the PLO says Israel violates the provisions relating to "the protection of cultural property" under Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954, Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Article 5 of the Hague Convention IX of 1907 and Article 53 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.
Niet! meets the Court of Appeal, without denying the occupation, said Israel was within its rights as"... the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country "(Article 43 of the 4th Convention The Hague 1907).

The occupation does not violate any international law
And the Court did not stop there ... It explains why the occupation of the West Bank by Israel does not violate any international law.
The PLO, explaining that the occupation is illegal, says Israel is violating:
  • Articles 49-6 and 53 of the Geneva Convention,
  • Articles 23, 27 and 46 of the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907,
  • Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954
  • Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907,
  • Article 5 of the Convention IX of the 1907 Hague
  • and Article 53 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.
Not at all! meets the Court of Appeal of Versailles , which states that:
  1. First, all of these texts are international acts signed between states and the obligations or prohibitions they contain are addressed to States. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO are States, none of these texts do not apply to them .
  2. Second, the Court still remember, these texts are addressed to "the Contracting Parties", ie both parties have signed - and again, neither the PLO nor the AP never signed these documents .
Propaganda does not replace the law
An irritated anything, the Court also added that the French law ... "can not be based solely on the discretion [the PLO] a political or social situation."
Humanitarian law is not violated either
The PLO, which then tries to hide the humanitarian standards, is once again sent into the ropes by the court, who said that while the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention are applicable in French law .
But "the International Court of Justice stated that they (the agreements) contain only obligations on states, and that the right of individuals to rely on was not mentioned" , only the parties contractors are bound by those conventions, and the Hague Convention of 1907 are not applicable because ... Jerusalem is not bombed!
The PLO and the Palestinians can not rely on any international texts
Finally, the Court said, "the conventional international standards" do not give the "Palestinian people shows that the PLO represent the right to plead before a court. "
PLO condemned AFD
The Court of Appeal sentenced the AFPS (Association France Palestine Solidarity) and the PLO to pay 30,000 euros to Alstom, 30,000 euros from Alstom Transport, and 30 000 Veolia Transport.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.