Galería

New Democrats on the situation in the Middle East


The main problem with the political framework that political parties in Canada are agreeing is to do not recognize that spaces Palestinian territory is being illegally occupying by Israel. Palestinian have the right to defend their territory from occupation. Israel had not respected UN resolutions on the occupying land of Palestine. There is not condemnation against Israel’s mass killing of Palestinians.

 

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]

“Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West BankEast Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law,[15] despite Israel’s armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties.[16] In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.[17][18] The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

See List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

Canadian Governments, Conservatives, Liberal and NDP had not asking for sanction on the viiolations of Human Rights on Israel. Why is there too much complacency for the war crimes of Israel?

 

Dionicio Barrales,  Edmonton

 

 

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Canada’s government and key political leaders have not condemned the massacre. Canadians on the streets, organizations and social institutions denounce them.

http://derechoshumanosyjusticiaparatodos.blogspot.ca/2014/08/canadas-government-and-key-political.html

 

Does Canada’s government support Palestinian children while under the bombs? Is this Canada’s traditional commitment to peace and reconciliation? (From a personal letter to editors and to Canada’s government and leaders of Opposition and Liberal Party).
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/7/11/1405096572893/d6d36c73-4386-4f27-8c6c-ad4996bc17d9-620×411.jpeg

Are these the careful air strikes that are meant to to spare children and civilians?

 

Deepak Obhrai, Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, in the Editorial page of the Toronto Star Tue August 11, 2014: mentioned some irresponsible comments in relation to the massacre of civilians (almost 2000 people dead ) and children (464 death) and wounded (over 10.000) plus 500,000 refugees, which were designated UN shelters known to Israel but kept on shelling them.

 

http://9news.static9.net.au/~/media/images/

2014/july/26/2607_gaza_getty.ashx?w=718

“Dozen of bodies were recovered from the rubble
during the truce in Gaza”  
these were the safe and
carefully chosen by the Israeli Army to avoid
civilian and children casualties

He said: “This terrorist organisation continues to put innocent Palestinians at risk, cowardly hiding behind ¿them in civilian areas, while launching rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Israel takes great precautions to protect civilians; can Hamas say the same?” He goes on blaming the victims: Are these pictures (HispanTV) of Gaza under Israel brutal strikes, what Mr. Obhrai calls “great precaution to protect civilians?” Is that what he implies, pretending to love the murdered children more than their own parents?

 

http://themillenniumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PAL-
dead-children-in-gaza-morgue.jpg
Dead children in Gaza’s morgue after shelling from land and sea.

Or, are these the children that the Ministry of External Affaires and Prime Minister S. Harper want “to protect from their terrorist parents”. The NDP Leader of the opposition T. Mulcair, seem to fully agree with the grotesque “commitment to peace and reconciliation” (The Star, Aug 8 page A11) made by Canada’s government. Liberal leader J Trudeau is speechless in this brutal aggression of a military aggression against a sieged people whose land, life and humanity are negated in this massacres. As a paediatrician I can only express frustration and shame. What a shame! Canadians are not playing electoral strategies. Even the UN Secretary General says that “this is not a war but a massacre”, an intent of genocide, indeed.  The UN has demanded a investigation for these crimes against humankind. The Nazi actions such as those en WWII in Lidice come to mind.
José Venturelli, Paediatrician,  Professor Emeritus, McMaster University – Canada

 

Posted by Dr. Jose Venturelli at 9:22 AM

 

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^Roberts, Adam. “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967”. The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. “The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.”
  2. Jump up to:ab Pertile, Marco (2005). “‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’: A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?”. In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. “the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.”
  3. Jump up^Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). “Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review”.International Journal of Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) 4 (3): 548. doi:10.1093/icon/mol021. “The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation.”
  4. Jump up^Drew, Catriona (1997). “Self-determination and population transfer”. In Bowen, Stephen. Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories. International studies in human rights 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152.ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8. “It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation …”
  5. Jump up^International Labour Organization (2005). “The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories”. p. 14. “The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”.”
  6. Jump up^Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1 November 2007). “Israel, the Conflict and Peace: Answers to frequently asked questions”. “Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories. Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become “occupied territory” when control passed into the hands of Israel.”
  7. Jump up^Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1 November 2007). “Israel, the Conflict and Peace: Answers to frequently asked questions”. “Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory.”
  8. Jump up^Roberts, Adam. “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967”. The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 69. doi:10.2307/2203016. “SC Res. 446 (Mar. 22, 1979), adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States), reaffirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention, as well as opposing the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.”
  9. Jump up^Benveniśtî, Eyāl (2004). The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press. p. xvii. ISBN 978-0-691-12130-7. “In its advisory opinion of July 9, 2004, on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice found Israel in breach of several international law obligations by its construction of a separation barrier on West Bank territory. … The Court flatly rejects the Israeli claims concerning the inapplicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and concerning the inapplicability of Article 49 to the Jewish settlements in the areas occupied by Israel. Neither of these claims gained serious support from the international community.”
  10. Jump up to:ab Emma Playfair (Ed.) (1992). International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 396.ISBN 0-19-825297-8.
  11. Jump up to:ab Cecilia Albin (2001). Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 150. ISBN 0-521-79725-X.
  12. Jump up to:ab Mark Gibney; Stanlislaw Frankowski (1999). Judicial Protection of Human Rights: Myth or Reality?. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood. p. 72. ISBN 0-275-96011-0.
  13. Jump up^http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FLDPJ Point 12
  14. Jump up to:ab http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf paragraphs 95–101 and 120
  15. Jump up to:ab Gregory S. Mahler (2004). Politics and government in Israel: the maturation of a modern state. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 314.ISBN 978-0-7425-1611-3. Retrieved 7 December 2010.
  16. Jump up^Lebanon 1952 Syria 1953 Jordan 1951 Egypt 1951 Israel 1951 International Committee of the Red Cross
  17. Jump up to:ab Gerson, Allan. Israel, the West Bank, and International law, Routledge, Sept 28, 1978, ISBN 0-7146-3091-8, p. 82.
  18. Jump up to:ab Roberts, Adam, “Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years” in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 64, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 345–359., p. 350
  19. Jump up to:ab see the “Place of customary international law” on pages 5–6 of International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel, by Dr. David Kretzmer and Chapter 2 “Application of International Law”, in The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer
  20. Jump up^James L. Gelvin (2007). The Israel-Palestine conflict: one hundred years of war. Cambridge University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-521-88835-6. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
  21. Jump up^Time Inc (12 March 1971). LIFE. Time Inc. p. 32. ISSN 0024-3019. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
  22. Jump up^Yehuda Lukacs (September 1999). Israel, Jordan, and the Peace Process. Syracuse University Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-8156-2855-2. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
  23. Jump up to:ab Dr. Yvonne Schmidt (May 2008). Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. GRIN Verlag. pp. 361–2. ISBN 978-3-638-94450-2. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
  24. Jump up^“Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Politics of De Facto Annexation” Ian Lustick
  25. Jump up^See the Judgment in “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, para 120, 134, and 142[1] and PAUL J. I. M. DE WAART (2005) International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, pp. 467–487, doi:10.1017/S0922156505002839
  26. Jump up to:ab U.S. position on Jerusalem – statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee – transcript. U.S. Department of State Bulletin, August, 1984
  27. Jump up^CRS Report for Congress Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy Updated February 23, 2008 (page 38, 1st paragraph, end)
  28. Jump up^Natasha Mozgovaya; Barak Ravid (Dec 9, 2009). “U.S.: Only Israel, Palestinians should decide Jerusalem’s future”Haaretz. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
  29. Jump up^“Europe Affirms Support for a Corpus Separatum for Greater Jerusalem”“Reaction by Foreign Minister Sharon on the EU stand on Jerusalem, 11 March 1999.
  30. Jump up^GA resolution 63/30
  31. Jump up^“http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/jordan_treaty.htm”.
  32. Jump up^Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
  33. Jump up^United Nations Treaty Collection. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
  34. Jump up^Israel Spurns International Criminal Court, Sophie Claudet, Agence France Presse, June 12, 2002.
  35. Jump up^“The Geneva Convention”BBC. 2004-08-24.
  36. Jump up to:ab “The view that the fourth Geneva Convention is applicable, and should be applied, in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been very widely held internationally. Indeed, a remarkable degree of unanimity prevails on this matter. Countless international organizations, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental, have taken this view. Within the UN General Assembly, it has been upheld from the beginning of the occupation.” Roberts, Adam (1990-01-01). “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967”. The American Journal of International Law 84 (1): 44–103 [69]. doi:10.2307/2203016ISSN 0002-9300.JSTOR 2203016.
  37. Jump up^“Concern over Israel settlement exports”BBC. 5 November 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
  38. Jump up^http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1980/scres80.htm
  39. Jump up^“2006/… Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan”. United Nations Human Rights Council. 2 October 2006. Retrieved 5 February 2014. Document A/HRC/2/L.12 (Adopted by a vote of 45–1, with 1 abstention)
  40. Jump up^CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998
  41. Jump up^See ICERD Article 3
  42. Jump up^Statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 5 December 2001. International Committee of the Red Cross. 12 May 2001. “the ICRC has expressed growing concern about the consequences in humanitarian terms of the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
  43. Jump up^Forsythe, David (2005). The humanitarians: the International Committee of the Red Cross. Cambridge University Press. p. 73.ISBN 978-0-521-84828-2. “The ICRC publicly stated that the building of Jewish settlements in the territories, the Israeli use of collective punishments, the destruction of Arab houses as punishment, the expulsion of Arabs from the territories, and the seizing of Arab lands and resources without compelling military necessity, inter alia, all violated the Fourth GC.”
  44. Jump up^Cohen, Esther (1985). Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories, 1967–1982. Manchester University Press ND. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-7190-1726-1. “the ICRC holds that the displacement of populations which may result from the settlements are violations of Article 49.”
  45. Jump up to:ab c Kessler, Glenn (2009-06-17). “Old Legal Opinion Raises New Questions”The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  46. Jump up^Matt Skarzynski, Jonathan H. van Melle, Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Holly Byker, Churches for Middle East Peace,Statements on American Policy toward Settlements by U.S. Government Officials – 1968–2009, June 8, 2009.
  47. Jump up to:ab “Letter of the State Department Legal Advisor, Mr. Herbert J. Hansell, Concerning the Legality of Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”, cited in Progress report – The human rights dimensions of population transfer including the implantation of settler prepared by Mr. Awn Shawhat Al-Khasawneh.
  48. Jump up^RAND Palestinian State Study Team. (2005). Building a successful Palestinian state. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. p. 16.ISBN 9780833035325.
  49. Jump up to:ab Leverett, Flint (2009). “A Road Map to Nowhere”Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  50. Jump up^Security Council Resolution 465 (1980) on the situation in the territories Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  51. Jump up^John V. Canfield (2001). Middle East in Turmoil 1. Nova Publishers. p. 11.
  52. Jump up to:ab Nicholas Laham (2004). Crossing the Rubicon: Ronald Reagan and U.S. policy in the Middle East. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-7546-3961-9. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
  53. Jump up^Dilip Hiro (1982). Inside the Middle East. McGraw-Hill. p. 230. ISBN 978-0-07-029055-6. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
  54. Jump up^“And the Obama Administration’s position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Rozen, Laura (2009-11-02). “Clinton walks back Israel settlements remarks”POLITICO.com. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  55. Jump up^U.S. ‘opposed’ to Israeli settlements (Al Jazeera, Nov. 4, 2009) (beginning of comments by Hillary Clinton)
  56. Jump up^http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12512732 Israeli settlements: US vetoes UNSC resolution BBC News 19 February 2011
  57. Jump up^Gorenberg, Gershom. “The Accidental Empire”. New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2006. p. 99.
  58. Jump up^Donald Macintyre, Secret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal at the Wayback Machine (archived June 11, 2008). Independent, 26 May 2007. (on web.archive)
  59. Jump up^

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s