Ann love,
what have you really got to gain by being publicly humiliated by David who, unlike you, knows what the hell he’s talkin’ about !!!
Wouldn’t you be better off taking your toys ( live snakes, vipers etc.) and play in that intellectual quick sands pit/site specially built by that bloke Alex Feign famous for producing the purest organic venom !!??

AJN

mate, to be honest, I never thought of that stuff the way you putit.
Can you give us a kinda brain scanner with all the graphs even if the lines go way out of the screen, of how you arrived there and, mainly who supervised you on route !

AJN not to be confused with Australian Jewish News bcs. at times they are even worse.

Ann Elizabeth Fink

You are being very misleading on all three counts when you state the EU, USA and the Israeli Supreme Court accept the Geneva Convention

1. The EU is not a signatory to the Convention.

2. As to the USA – please note the following from the Harvard Program On Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research:
“It should be noted that Israel’s objection to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to territories it occupies is far from unique. The majority of occupying powers since 1949 have contested, at least in part, the applicability of the law of occupation in the territories they occupied, such as in the case of Iraq in Kuwait (1990), Russia in Afghanistan (1979-1989), Indonesia in East Timor (1975-1999) and the U.S. in Granada (1983) and Panama (1989). One reason for this opposition is that occupying powers often fear that acquiescing to the applicability of the law of occupation to territories under their control may have implications beyond the protection of the occupied population.”

3. As to the Israeli Supreme Court – your claim is misleading – as is made clear from the Harvard Program:
“In the Court’s perspective, the Geneva Conventions are not as a whole reflective of customary law (in the same way the Hague Regulations are). They can be enforced only partially on the basis of the customary nature of certain provisions. For instance, the Court has held that Article 49 (on deportations, transfer, and evacuations)—at least to the degree it prohibited individual deportations of persons who constitute a security threat— was inapplicable to the OPT because it did not express customary international law. On the other hand, the Court has held that Article 23 (on free passage of humanitarian consignments), Article 64 (on penal legislation), and Article 78 (on security measures and internment) were applicable to the OPT, as well as generally all provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to detention.”

The partial applicability of the Geneva Convention by the Supreme Court is however only one half of the picture.

The other half that you and Bob Carr and now the Labor Party studiously ignore is article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter. Do you agree they are relevant to determine the legal right of Jews to live in the West Bank?

What agreements do you claim are being violated by Israel in relation to the settlements?

Who are the Australian Jews you claim are opposing the Israeli legal system and thereby directly opposing democratic rule in Israel?

Facts rather than generalised and unsubstantiated statements would be appreciated.

Phillip

Whether Labor wins or does not win – Australia will have one of its major political parties with an anti- Jewish policy.

That is something the Jewish community in Australia should be very concerned about.

Some Australian Jews may reserve the right to themselves to to oppose the Israeli Legal system but in doing so they are directly opposing democratic rule in Israel. The settlements are in direct violation to agreements signed by Israel and while there are Israeli political parties which do not support Democracy, many Australian Jews are appalled by the views of members of Knesset such as Bennett, Danon and others who wish to legalise the right to land by conquest.

Put your mind at rest – they won’t win.
And Julie Bishop’s views representingthe views and policy of the Coalition on this issue are in line with those of AIJAC and the ZFA.