# Why Does the West Bank Need to be Ethnically Cleansed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421 "2009-02-04T15:48:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/221 "2009-02-20T02:42:17Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > My post did not say that he claimed it was ‘not illegal’. I am sure he realised his actions were illegal, I don’t understand your point. If he believed his actions were illegal, then what does it matter who’s deciding if they are illegal or not? > [@](#): > > just as i am sure you realise that the Israeli settlers actions are illegal. That’s nonsense. Kindly assume that I am arguing in good faith. Thank you. > [@](#): > > What I said was that he thought the US government should not decide what is legal or illegal. Do you have a cite for that? Because I’m seriously skeptical of your claim. > [@](#): > > United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said Israel’s ongoing efforts to build settlements in the West Bank is “illegal”. So are you better informed on international law that the Secretary-General of the United Nations or are you in denial? You are presenting me with a [false dilemma.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). I have no idea how well informed Ban Ki-Moon is on international law, but another possibility is that Ban Ki-Moon has an agenda which is informing his statements and/or beliefs. But let’s do this: If I can give you the name of a scholar with better legal credentials than Ban-Ki Moon who takes the position that the settlements are legal, will you abandon your argument about Ban-Ki Moon? ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/222 "2009-02-20T02:44:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Please state the Secretary-General’s qualifications for determining international law. He he he he - you’re funny. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/223 "2009-02-20T02:49:22Z")
By the way, since you won’t answer my question, I will answer it myself: > [@](#): > > Suppose that the New York City Parking Violations Bureau issued an opinion that the settlements are illegal. Should that mean anything? The answer is that it doesn’t mean much, because the Jewish settlements are outside the jurisdiction of the NYC Parking Violations Bureau. Similarly, if I get a parking ticket in Manhattan, who would have the authority to find that the ticket is invalid – the Parking Violations Bureau or the International Court of Justice? The answer is the former. Ok, so what about Jewish Settlements and the 4th Geneva Convention? As noted earlier, the 4th Geneva Convention does not give any judicial or interpretation authority to the UN. As far as I can tell, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/224 "2009-02-20T03:32:08Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Even funnier, I’ve publicly stated, several times, that the US should cut off funding if Israel does not initiate an immediate settlement freeze and that the Palestinians should get roughly 97% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But like most threads on Israel, I’m forced to spend much more time debunking non-facts than I can spend on discussing where we go from here. > An unfortunate side effect of having to spend so much effort on keeping a debate factual and free of double standards. Finnagain - I would just like to give you due recognition for this statement, until I saw this my general opinion of you was about that of Allessan or Brazil 84 - having seen this I can give your arguments far great weight. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/225 "2009-02-20T03:37:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Do you also demand that an international body certify that America has the right to sovereignty over the southern states, or that Quebec is part of Canada? Well considering that “the world” has pretty much recognised both of the above, by their deliberate and explicit actions (if not with an actual statement) I would think that it is no longer seriously considered an issue. I am not going to go and research it, but I would be willing to bet that there are hundreds, if not thousands of High Commissions or other national representative offices in the southern states. What countries have established embassies or missions of any sort in the occupied territories? in fact isn’t just the opposite happening with many countries specifically and explictly saying that they won’t / don’t officially recognise Israels claim to these territories, or that they are part of Israel? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/226 "2009-02-20T04:04:44Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Well considering that “the world” has pretty much recognised both of the above, by their deliberate and explicit actions (if not with an actual statement) I would think that it is no longer seriously considered an issue. You are correct that it isn’t considered an issue, but I was discussing the underlying legal/moral premise and not the reaction to it. There wasn’t, for instance, anywhere near the level of outrage when, say, Jordan ruled the territories, but there is when Israel does. And, of course, it should be noted that with the Three Noes Jordan abandoned its claims of sovereignty, the territories then had no sovereign claims to rule other than Israel’s, and the vast majority of the land wasn’t privately owned in the first place. The situation is way too complicated for oversimplifications. In any case, the fact that there wasn’t near constant opposition to Jordanian sovereignty (even though Jordan’s invasion helped kill Palestinian self-determination in the wake of the '48 war) between 1948 and 1967 doesn’t mean that it did fill the role a sovereign while Israel does not. > [@bengangmo](#): > > Finnagain - I would just like to give you due recognition for this statement, until I saw this my general opinion of you was about that of Allessan or Brazil 84 - having seen this I can give your arguments far great weight. 🙂 Thanks for the compliment (although I’d rather not get into a comparison between my posts and those of others, to be honest). And, for those who are curious, an expanded [elaboration on my position.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10745403&postcount=222) If it was funny I’d laugh… but the fact that I’m routinely slandered as supporting Israel “100%” and demanding that others do the same is, simply… unpalatable. > [@antechinus](#): > > He he he he In case you’re curious, Moon has a BA and an MPA. He’s not a trained lawyer. More to the point, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Sec Gen is the C.A.O. of the UN, and not in the position to determine international law. High comedy, I know. > [@brazil84](#): > > As noted earlier, the 4th Geneva Convention does not give any judicial or interpretation authority to the UN. As far as I can tell, anyway. Well, the charter would suggest that the UNSC can at least compel resolutions to breaches of the peace via use of force if necessary. But the ICJ would [have jurisdiction over the enforcement of treaties.](http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0) > [@](#): > > 1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. > > 2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: There are issues, however, as to whether or not the PLO was entitled to become a signatory of the 4th GC. [ > [@](#): > > Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council “that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”. > > On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine”. ]([http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P)) The 4th GC applies to conflicts between signatory nations. Additionally, ICJ opinions are just that. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/227 "2009-02-20T08:29:40Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Why thanks for correcting my typo. You can of course prove that settlers are looters with some substantiantion aside from you say so? Not like I’ve been asking for a bit. Or should I typo that as bite so you can hang me on it and avoid the issue? > > Yeah, I gotcha, we should just shoot the Jews. Very straightforward issue. > > Oh I see, we should just shoot the Jews 'til they leave, it’s the humanitarian thing to do. Pointless to ask, but once again do you have **any** kind of a cite to back up your positions that settlers somehow = looters, or that the IDF considers settlers subhuman? Which is the position you took and I’ve been asking you to support for 13 days now? > > Should I point out your typo of “all into the trap” instead of fall into the trap? Seriously, you think the starting point of this discussion should be that settler’s lives are forfeit? And it’s doing the Jews a favor to just kill some of them rather than all of them? My apologies that I don’t have a good starting point from the wisdom of the Turner Diaries.:rolleyes: This post is such a poor representation of the correct position that I have no confidence that I can convey to you what it actually is. Secondly, I responded promptly to your request re: IDF/looters (settlers). If you are closed to any persuasion other than a bare statement, so be it. In summary the conclusion is the best one available from the evidence. No slam is intended in the bated/baited remark, nor in fact is it a typo. They are different words altogether. Correctly, however the starting point is that starting position is that the looters are justly shot on sight. ‘Looters’ is a normal word, with a definition. If you have a reason why it is a poor descriptor, recite. Turner Diaries, at a guess, not the delectable Kathleen in a tell-all? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/228 "2009-02-20T08:32:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > … > the ludicrously irrational and biased statements of **Sevastopol**. > … How so? This bald evaluation merely suggests the reader’s own bias and resistances. That is the thing about reasoning, it often takes you to unexpected places, even ones you do not want to go. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/229 "2009-02-20T17:37:22Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > But the ICJ would [have jurisdiction over the enforcement of treaties.](http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0) As I read it, the ICJ has jurisdiction over such things only to the exent the state in question agrees to ICJ jurisdiction. Has Israel agreed to submit to ICJ jurisdiction on this point? Somehow I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/230 "2009-02-21T01:42:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I have no idea how well informed Ban Ki-Moon is on international law, but another possibility is that Ban Ki-Moon has an agenda which is informing his statements and/or beliefs. > > But let’s do this: If I can give you the name of a scholar with better legal credentials than Ban-Ki Moon who takes the position that the settlements are legal, will you abandon your argument about Ban-Ki Moon? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > In case you’re curious, Moon has a BA and an MPA. He’s not a trained lawyer. > More to the point, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Sec Gen is the C.A.O. of the UN, and not in the position to determine international law. > High comedy, I know. Do you think that the United Nations Secretary-General might have advisors working for him that know a thing or two about international law? From the **UN Report** I quoted earlier: _“The advisory opinion and a number of United Nations resolutions have all affirmed that Israel’s practice of constructing settlements — in effect, the transfer by an occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies — **constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention**. In addition to the construction of the settlements, other activities related to settlements are also illegal.”_ [UN Report - 5 November 2008](http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/587/97/PDF/N0858797.pdf?OpenElement) It does not matter what qualifications the Secretary-General has. The report was prepared by the UN Special Committee - a group that has access to better resources and access to persons better informed on international law than brazil84. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/231 "2009-02-21T01:52:21Z")
Like when the ICJ issued another opinion on whether or not military necessity justified Israel’s security barrier, and its own judges objected to the fact that they didn’t actually look at military concerns? Or when Kofi Annan called the occupation illegal and then quickly had his aide retract the statement as factually incorrect? The fallacy of appeal to authority isn’t all that convincing. Especially when the authority you’re appealing to has a long, long record of bigotry and bias. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/232 "2009-02-21T02:40:26Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > This bald evaluation merely suggests the reader’s own bias and resistances. You sound like **FinnAgain** : if somebody rejects your viewpoint, it must be because they’re prejudiced. I think most people would agree that “ludicrously irrational” is, if anything, a fairly restrained way to characterize the recommendation that Israelis in the occupied territories should be shot on sight. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Or when Kofi Annan called the occupation illegal and then quickly had his aide retract the statement as factually incorrect? Do you have a cite for this alleged proxy retraction? Because AFAICT, Annan’s response to negative reactions to his use of the term “illegal occupation” in March 2002 was not to retract it but to reaffirm it: [U.N. Chief Defends Using Term “Illegal Occupation”](http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20020314/24672_story.asp) > [@](#): > > Thursday, March 14, 2002 > > UNITED NATIONS – U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday defended his use of the term “illegal occupation” to describe the Israeli presence in Palestinian territories, saying the term “has been used by [the Security] Council and the General Assembly.” Citing the annexation of East Jerusalem, the building of settlements and the imposition of Israeli law, he told a news conference that the council “has used it in the context that I used it.” > > “The intention [of using the phrase] is not to persuade anyone to make concessions,” he added. “In fact, I think we are dealing with an issue that is more political than legal.” > > Annan had said of Israel in comments to the council Tuesday, “You have the right to live in peace and security within secure internationally recognized borders. But you must end the illegal occupation.” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/233 "2009-02-21T04:00:41Z")
Does it give you any pause, at all, that you’re reduced to slinging such malicious fictions about me, Kim? Or has your argument has sunk so low that it now contains verifiable fictions designed to slander me, and that doesn’t even bother you? Does it not disturb you at all that your argument contains claims of utter fiction about how I allege, imply, suggest (let alone state) that everybody who I disagree with is prejudiced/bigoted? It really doesn’t bother you at all to sling slime at me like that? Ah well. And you expect me to talk to you as if your argument was on the level? Yeah, good strategy Kim. It’s not quite at the level of spitting in someone’s face and then asking them to carry your groceries, but it’s close enough. [ > [@](#): > > In the view of Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, it was a “serious mistake” to describe the occupation itself, as opposed to some of Israel’s actions as an occupier, in this way. In a subsequent letter to the New York Times, Mr Annan’s spokesman admitted as much. The secretary-general, he said, had not intended to refer to the legality of Israel’s occupation of the territories during the war of 1967, only to breaches of its obligations as an occupying power. ]([http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story\_id=1378577](http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577)) I suppose I could do the extra work and track down the original letter… but not only is the Economist a fine cite, it’s normally quite critical of Israel. That, and I’m not going to attempt to carry your groceries while dodging your spittle. Fight your own ignorance on this one, Kim. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/234 "2009-02-21T04:35:28Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Does it give you any pause, at all, that you’re reduced to slinging such malicious fictions about me […] > Does it not disturb you at all that your argument contains claims of utter fiction […] I don’t agree that they’re fictions, and I don’t agree that they’re malicious. I think that this melodramatic response on your part is just another example of how extremely poorly you react to honest disagreement. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I suppose I could do the extra work and track down the original letter. No problem, it wasn’t hard to find; thanks for the cite. What you were referring to is [this letter from the UN spokesman, Frederic Eckhard,](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EFDF173BF930A15750C0A9649C8B63): > [@](#): > > In using the word ‘‘illegal’’ in his address to the United Nations Security Council on March 12, Secretary General Kofi Annan had no intention of entering the debate about the legality of Israel’s original action in occupying territory during the war of 1967, as implied by George P. Fletcher (Op-Ed, March 21). > > The secretary general referred, rather, to Israel’s failure, in the 35 years that have since elapsed, to accept the legal obligations that the status of an occupying power carries with it, and its actions – several of which are referred to by Professor Fletcher – that run contrary to those obligations and have therefore been declared illegal by the Security Council and the General Assembly. So the sequence of events actually went like this: - March 12, 2002: Annan calls on Israel to “end the illegal occupation”. - March 14: Annan defends the use of the term “illegal occupation”. - March 23: Eckhard clarifies that the term “illegal occupation” was intended to convey not that Israel was acting illegally in 1967 when it began the occupation, but rather that Israel is acting illegally now. I think you are, at the very least, exaggerating in characterizing this as “Annan called the occupation illegal and then quickly had his aide retract the statement as factually incorrect”. In fact, both Annan and Eckhard stood by the claim that Israel is acting illegally. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/235 "2009-02-21T05:26:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The 4th GC applies to conflicts between signatory nations. > Additionally, ICJ opinions are just that. Total crap, that’s actually the excuse that Nazis on the docks in Nuremburg tried to use to explain away why they could do anything they wanted to Soviet prisoners since the USSR hadn’t signed Geneva 3. You might want to read through the preamble [here:](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5) > [@](#): > > Part I. General Provisions > > Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention **in all circumstances.** > > Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. > > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. > > Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. **They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.** Relevant bits bolded for you. The conventions most certainly do **not** just apply to conflicts between signatory nations. Apologies I guess for calling you writing each sentence on its own line poetry? 'Cos Poetry has many ways of being expressed. And deciding that each sentence no matter how short. Needs it’s own line. Really, WTF is up with that? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/236 "2009-02-21T05:48:43Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > This post is such a poor representation of the correct position that I have no confidence that I can convey to you what it actually is. The correct position? Sorry for deviating as much as an inch from the party line, please don’t send me to a re-education camp.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Secondly, I responded promptly to your request re: IDF/looters (settlers). If you are closed to any persuasion other than a bare statement, so be it. In summary the conclusion is the best one available from the evidence. Actually you responded to repeated requests to provide a solid foundation that the IDF considers settlers to be subhuman by providing another of your opinions with no factual foundation by calling them looters who should be shot on sight and failing to actually cite your first bit of drivel. Sorry, I will not take your bare statement of such a bizarre position as fact unless you can actually support it. I could make a bare statement that aliens from the future contact me in my dreams and tell me that I’m going to be the savior of the galaxy - but I wouldn’t expect anyone with a working brain to take it on face value. > [@](#): > > Correctly, however the starting point is that starting position is that the looters are justly shot on sight. ‘Looters’ is a normal word, with a definition. If you have a reason why it is a poor descriptor, recite. And yet you are still unable to explain how the settlers are looters all deserving of death, or how the IDF considers them to be subhuman after I’ve been asking you to provide some sort of citation for it or some argument that doesn’t boil down to “because I say so,” for ermm.. 3 weeks now? > [@](#): > > Turner Diaries, at a guess, not the delectable Kathleen in a tell-all? Somehow I’m guessing you know this book rather well.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/237 "2009-02-21T06:03:08Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The conventions most certainly do **not** just apply to conflicts between signatory nations You just bolded the parts that say Powers will only be _bound by it_ in their _mutual relations_ or if the second party agrees to the GC. They’re quite clear as to what circumstances will cause a nation to be _bound by the GC._ What, you think "They shall be bound… if… " is not a statement of what has to happen for them to be bound? You think that they meant to write “They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, even if if the latter doesn’t accept or apply the provisions thereof, because that totally doesn’t matter.” What, just a big ol’ typo? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/238 "2009-02-21T07:18:34Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You just bolded the parts that say Powers will only be _bound by it_ in their _mutual relations_ or if the second party agrees to the GC. They’re quite clear as to what circumstances will cause a nation to be _bound by the GC._ Gee, do you read your own damn cites? > [@](#): > > On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council “that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”. > On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine”. Switzerland may try to prevaricate but 1) a belligerent abiding by the conventions even if it isn’t a signatory is still provided the protections from all signatory powers and good god, 1. Its practically obscene that I need to quote from the Nuremburg trials; world turned on it’s head and all that, but [here it is:](http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:iM_ZH3gb70UJ:clackhi.nclack.k12.or.us/~hadleyr/Nuremberg%2520Trials%2520Overview.pdf+nuremberg+pow+trial&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us)See the Doctors (or Medical) Milch case, the Pohl/WVHA case, the Hostage Case and the Einsatzgruppen Case. Guess what? As a simple for example on your reading of things, the Einsatzgruppen could have shot Jews, Communists, Gypsies, and any other undesirables all day long, and it’d be OK since the USSR didn’t sign Geneva 3. Germany did, and was bound to follow it, even against the USSR. > [@](#): > > What, you think "They shall be bound… if… " is not a statement of what has to happen for them to be bound? > > You think that they meant to write “They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, even if if the latter doesn’t accept or apply the provisions thereof, because that totally doesn’t matter.” > What, just a big ol’ typo? Your fantasy interpretation would be nice, but it didn’t work for the Nazis at Nuremburg, and by **your own cite** the PLO declared their adherence to Geneva 4. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/239 "2009-02-21T08:08:47Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Gee, do you read your own damn cites? Nice way to admit that you quoted your own refutation in your last post to me. Oh, no, wait, you just tried to chane the subject. I always confuse explicit retractions and attempts at changing the subject. And yeah… I always did like the argument that “You haven’t read your cite!” proven by a dramatically mistaken interpretation of that person’s cite. Yeah, I didn’t read my cite and we know that I didn’t because you didn’t understand it. If you’d understood it, we’d all know I read it. But since it confused you, I obviously didn’t read it. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Switzerland may try to prevaricate :rolleyes: Switzerland stated clearly that they couldn’t certify that the PLO had the right to act as a sovereign Power. > [@Dissonance](#): > > a belligerent abiding by the conventions Which would be a good point if the governing authority behind the PA hasn’t, continually, engaged in civilian-targeted killings, had their soldiers deliberately avoid distinguishing emblems, etc, etc, etc. .. If you’re honestly claiming that the PA/PLO/Hamas have obeyed the 4th GC, I’m obliged to tell you that your next request to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn will have to be turned down. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Geneva 3. Germany did, and was bound to follow it, even against the USSR. The Nurenberg trials were _years_ before the 3rd GC was ratified. And the convention which would govern the treatment of civilians is the 4th, not the 3rd. Swing and a miss. You’re also confusing normative and legal arguments, and making a hash out of what might otherwise be a coherent and/or a cogent argument. The Nuremberg Principles were created to inform and justify the rulings that were handed down. They wouldn’t have had to be created if they’d already existed and the current legal framework was adequate. Grok? If you want to argue that Germany should have followed the Nuremberg Principles because they were moral, that’s one thing. If you want to claim that the Germans violated one of the Genea Conventions which wasn’t ratified until years after the trials, then your factual basis is simply slipping, rapidly. That’s the problem when you obfuscate factual claims by trying to switch 'em with moral ones. > [@Dissonance](#): > > by **your own cite** the PLO declared their adherence to Geneva 4. Well shit, if they said it, it must be true :smack: ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421/240 "2009-02-21T12:53:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Does it give you any pause, at all, that you’re reduced to slinging such malicious fictions about me, Kim? Or has your argument has sunk so low that it now contains verifiable fictions designed to slander me, and that doesn’t even bother you? > Does it not disturb you at all that your argument contains claims of utter fiction about how I allege, imply, suggest (let alone state) that everybody who I disagree with is prejudiced/bigoted? > > It really doesn’t bother you at all to sling slime at me like that? > Ah well. . Why do you have to start attacking the poster when they are clearly just posting citations and rational argument? I don’t want to sound like a junior mod, but it seems to me that you have resorted to personal insults now realising the argument you present is lost. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement–e.g., “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”–is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum. [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448632) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-west-bank-need-to-be-ethnically-cleansed/484421.md?page=13)