+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Three Palestinian activists exiled from Jerusalem for five months

Without explanation, three Jerusalemite Palestinians are given five-month bans from the city of their birth and residence. One is banned from the West Bank as well.

Text and photos by: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org

Daoud Al-Ghoul walks near graffiti painted by Israelis on properties taken over by settlers in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City, March 3, 2014. Many of these properties taken over by settlers are as small as a single room directly adjacent to Palestinian homes.

Daoud Al-Ghoul walks near graffiti painted by Israelis on properties taken over by settlers in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, March 3, 2014. Al-Ghoul was recently issued Israeli military orders banning him from both Jerusalem and the West Bank for five months. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

In early December, three Jerusalem-born Palestinians received orders from Israeli authorities banning them from the city for a period of five months. Majd Darwish, Saleh Dirbas and Daoud Al-Ghoul first received phone calls saying that they were banned from entering the Old City. When they reported to the police station as requested they were given military orders banning them from all of Jerusalem until April 30, 2015.

The orders gave no reason for their exile. All three are prominent activists and community workers who have spent time in Israeli prisons.

In a Kafka-esque twist, Al-Ghoul received an additional military order a few days later banning him from the West Bank for six months. Al-Ghoul is a youth coordinator of the Health Work Committees (HWC), a Palestinian organization providing medical services. As a Jerusalem ID holder, he would normally be allowed to travel throughout Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Israel. Because Israel controls all borders, if he leaves the Palestinian territories, he risks being denied entry upon his return. This ironically means that Al-Ghoul’s only remaining option would be to stay inside the state of Israel. But according to the HWC, Al-Ghoul has returned to Jerusalem in protest of the various orders against him.

Daoud Al-Ghould talks with a neighbor of the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan stand near a protest tent built by local activists, March 3, 2014. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

Daoud Al-Ghoul talks with a neighbor next to a protest tent built by local activists in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan, March 3, 2014. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

“We are not afraid. We are fighting for our future and we have nothing to lose,” says Al-Ghoul. “We refuse this decision. It is our homeland. It is our basic right to live in our houses in Jerusalem. We must stop Israel and their racist policies of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment and forced displacement in Jerusalem. I call on the international community to act.”

Al-Ghoul traces his family’s history in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan for four centuries. Now the Israeli settler-operated “City of David” tourist attraction and associated residential settlements have made it one of the most volatile neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. In late October, nine more settler families took over Silwan homes during a late-night operation accompanied by a heavy police presence.

Silwan resident Daoud Al-Ghoul documents damage to Palestinian property due to excavations by the settler archeology group Elad, East Jerusalem, December 16, 2013.

Silwan resident Daoud Al-Ghoul documents damage to Palestinian property due to activities by the settler archeology group Elad, East Jerusalem, December 16, 2013. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

Al-Ghoul gives alternative tours of Silwan that have helped to raise awareness among internationals of the Elad settler organization’s efforts to remake a historic Palestinian neighborhood into a monument to Jewish religious and national identity. That Elad’s property acquisitions are of dubious legality matters little since they have the full cooperation of the Israeli Nature and Parks Authority and the Jerusalem municipality and police, which are also demolishing Palestinian homes and arresting Palestinian children in the process. Though annexed by Israel, the international community still considers East Jerusalem, including the Old City, to be occupied Palestinian territory.

“Such a strategy is indicative of the policy of gradual, systemic ethnic cleansing against the citizens of Jerusalem. More and more regulations, restrictive laws are being implemented against this population that is already denied its rights, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention,” said Yousef Habash, European representative of the HWC in a statement.

Solidarity activists have launched online petitions about this case to the Canadian government as well as the EU in English and French.

A sign from tourist attraction, known as the "City of David", with a view of the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan, East Jerusalem, December 16, 2013. The archaeological excavations and Israeli national park on the site are administered by the settler organization Elad. Though annexed by Israel, the international community considers East Jerusalem, including the Old City, to be occupied Palestinian territory.

A sign from tourist attraction known as the “City of David” with a view of the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan, East Jerusalem, December 16, 2013. The archaeological excavations and Israeli national park on the site are administered by the settler organization Elad. Though annexed by Israel, the international community considers East Jerusalem, including the Old City, to be occupied Palestinian territory. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

Related:
In Silwan, the settlers are winning – big time
WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      “The orders gave no reason for their exile. All three are prominent activists and community workers who have spent time in Israeli prisons.”

      a. Liars!

      b. “The orders” are appealable in Israeli Courts;

      c. If “the orders gave no reason for their exile” (sometimes the reasons are given in accompanying documents or by way of citing the invoked legal code with summary explanation), then it is arbitrary and – without question – doomed to hit the iceberg in Court.

      d.In all Western countries, an individual may be ordered not to contact a person or group of persons, not to enter a specific house or houses, not to enter a specific street or streets, not to enter a specific neighborhood or neighborhoods for a specific period of time and for specific reasons specified by law.

      Only the inane and gullible swallows this idiotic article line sinker and hook – with no questions asked. Gimme a break – for goodness sake!

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah Right

        This is a violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV.

        It makes No Difference Whatsoever that the Military Order can be “appealed” to the Israel Supreme Court, as that court is not empowered to overturn that Article of this International Convention.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          a. You dispute the jurisdiction of the Court to hear cases brought before it pursuant to Article 49, GC IV;

          b. You provided NO legal arguments to support your claim. Thus the question:

          c. On what LEGAL basis do you dispute the jurisdiction of the Israeli Court to hear cases brought before it pursuant to Article 49, GC IV. PLS. (1) make a series of coherent LEGAL arguments backed up by (2) proper citation of the relevant provisions(s) of the Convention you rely upon. If you can’t cite any legal basis, PLS. cite (3) at least ONE Case Law to support your arguments. If you can’t cite any of both or both, you need not reply at all.

          d. I am certain that NO ONE ever told you/claimed that that the Israeli Court is empowered to overturn Article 49, GC IV! Bearing that in mind, what then is the basis for your contention that the “court is not empowered to overturn that Article of this International Convention”? Why are you arguing what is not in dispute – if not for the fact that you are already confused re the legal issues involved?

          Stomping your feet, fuming and making wild declarations are not legal arguments. Pls. stick to just providing legal arguments – else I won’t respond.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “d. I am certain that NO ONE ever told you/claimed that that the Israeli Court is empowered to overturn Article 49, GC IV!”

            The forcible transfer of protected persons out of an occupied territory is prohibited, Ginger.

            As in: It. Is. Not. Allowed.

            You have argued that a Military Order banning Daoud Al-Ghoul from the West Bank is “appealable in Israeli Courts”.

            QED: You are arguing that an Israeli Court can rule on whether **OR** **NOT** it will overturn that Military Order.

            Think about it.
            Think about it.
            Think about it.

            In Ginger-World an Israeli Court can strike down that Military Order **OR** it can dismiss the appeal and allow the Military Order to stand.

            In Geneva-Convention-World that Court does not have the authority to dismiss such an appeal i.e. such a Military Order is prohibited, and so the only ruling that a Court can come up with is “The Military Order is Prohibited, Dude.”

            Honestly, Ginger, you aren’t half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            1. “In Ginger-World an Israeli Court can strike down that Military Order **OR** it can dismiss the appeal and allow the Military Order to stand.”

            EXACTLY! Gee, why must I go through extraordinary lengths to get you to understand very simple and elementary stuff? And whatever the Israeli Court does, Article 49, GC IV, remains in place. It will not “be overturned” – and no one ever said that I would be or that anyone “is empowered to overturn it”!

            2. “In Geneva-Convention-World that Court does not have the authority to dismiss such an appeal i.e. such a Military Order is prohibited, and so the only ruling that a Court can come up with is “The Military Order is Prohibited, Dude.”

            Oy, so now you change your position and ADMIT that the Israeli Court has the jurisdiction to hear cases brought before it pursuant to Article 49, GC IV – BUT then ONLY to reach a verdict YOU and ONLY YOU desire? Right, typical Arab-logic/stupidity! What a buffoon!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            This is what I said:
            “It makes No Difference Whatsoever that the Military Order can be “appealed” to the Israel Supreme Court, as that court is not empowered to overturn that Article of this International Convention.”

            I am quite correct: no Israeli court has the authority to OVERTURN a prohibition that is found in Geneva Convention IV.

            You are claiming that an Israeli court has the power to either UPHOLD or ANNUL a Military Order that Article 49 prohibits “regardless of motive”, which means then you are indeed claiming that an Israeli court can OVERTURN that prohibition.

            That you can’t see that simple point indicates nothing other than that you are a blithering idiot.

            Article 49 prohibits this Military Order. An Israeli court therefore has no authority – none whatsoever – to come to any other conclusion that that “This Military Order is prohibited”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “EXACTLY!”

            That is Ginger claiming that an Israeli court can decide that the IDF is, indeed, entitled to issue a Military Order that is prohibited by GCIV “regardless of motive”.

            What part of “prohibited” and/or “regardless of motive” are you having problems understanding, Ginger?

            The IDF is Not Allowed To Issue This Military Order, and every time it does so it is committing a war crime.

            So every time an Israeli Court “upholds” such a Military Order then it is complicit in a war crime.

            Honestly, this isn’t rocket science, so why are you acting this dense?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “BUT then ONLY to reach a verdict YOU and ONLY YOU desire?”

            I’m dealing with a buffoon.

            Article 49 of GCIV says that this Military Order is “prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            Ginger is insisting that an Israel Court can come to a conclusion OTHER THAN that this Military Order is “prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            I am quite correct to point out that Ginger is a blithering idiot for claiming that an Israeli Court has the “authority” to come to any other conclusion than that something that is “prohibited, regardless of motive” is exactly that i.e. “prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            But in Ginger-World an Israeli Court has the freedom to come to whatever conclusion it wants… so long as that decision is advantageous to Israel.

            Banana Republics do that, Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            OMG! How on earth did I got you this rattled, confused and clearly – OUT OF CONTROL fuming and all over the map furiously ranting incoherently? Take it easy dude. Calm down! (a) Apparently neither the Israeli Court nor any other Court has the jurisdiction to examine whether or not a “military order” is a “prohibition found in GC IV”, (because the imbecile “YeahRight/John Boy” says so!). (b) Apparently the Israeli Court DOES HAVE said jurisdiction BUT ONLY reach a verdict that MUST say that a “military order” is a “prohibition found in GC IV”, or else the Court has NO jurisdiction (because the imbecile “YeahRight/John Boy” says so!). (c) Apparently the Israeli Court has no jurisdiction! (d) Apparently the Israeli Court DOES HAVE jurisdiction! What a confused imbecile you are, “YeahRight/John Boy”!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            This is simplicity itself, Ginger: a Military Order that results in a protected person being forcibly displaced is “prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            Therefore the only ruling that an Israeli Court can make w.r.t. a Military Order that forces a Palestinian to leave East Jerusalem is that such an order is “prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            To reach any other ruling is tantamount to the court acting as an accomplice in a criminal act.

            Honestly, this isn’t rocket science…

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            What happen YH don’t have the guts to admit you were wrong about the National Defense Authorization Act ?

            You and Mike are quite the pair ones a bigot and the other is a coward.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            GG: “What happen YH don’t have the guts to admit you were wrong about the National Defense Authorization Act ?”

            I would if I was.
            But since I’m not then I won’t.

            The NDAA is an appropriations bill.

            That the NDAA contains within it declaratory statements of the “I Love Mom And Apple Pie” variety can not change that fact.

            And that’s all that Section 1021 is: a declaratory statement “affirming” that Congress agrees with the President that the AUMF means that the USA has Got Its War On!

            Honestly, am I the only person in this thread who knows what a “declaratory statement” is, and what it means?

            Hint: It doesn’t mean what Gilgamesh thinks it means.

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            You are still wrong:

            “In the United States, acts of Congress, such as federal statutes, are published chronologically in the order in which they become law — often by being signed by the President, on an individual basis in official pamphlets called “slip laws,” and are grouped together in official bound book form, also chronologically, as “session laws.” The “session law” publication for Federal statutes is called the United States Statutes at Large. Any given act may be only one page, or hundreds of pages, in length. An act may be classified as either a “Public Law” or a “Private Law.””

            Get it now “Acts of Congress” can be classified as laws.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            GG: “Get it now “Acts of Congress” can be classified as laws.”

            sigh

            You have no idea what my argument is, do you?

            GG (earlier): “His country, the US, has a law that allows the military to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial,the National Defense Authorization Act.”

            I am not arguing that the NDAA “isn’t a law”.

            It surely is, as all “acts” are.

            What I am arguing is that the NDAA isn’t the “law that allows the military to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial”.

            It is nothing more than an appropriations bill that contains within it a Mom And Apple Pie statement of support for the US President.

            And that declaratory statement in support of the President relates to the passage of ANOTHER LAW called the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force.

            It is the AUMF that is the law that allows the US President to unleash the US Military on Whomsoever The Congress Has Authorized The Prez To Go Whammer-Jammer On.

            Honestly, the ignorance is astonishing….

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            More from the ACLU

            “Brings Indefinite Detention to the U.S. Itself: The bill now says that detainees may be brought to the United States for “detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF). In plain English, that means the policy of indefinite detention by the military, without charge or trial, could be carried out here at home. Right now, the number of people in the U.S. in military indefinite detention is zero. If the bill is enacted, that number could immediately jump to 100 or more.”

            Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Ginger: “b. “The orders” are appealable in Israeli Courts;”

        That statement is nought but a fig leaf.

        A Military Order that “exiles” a Palestinian from an Israeli-occupied territory is a clear violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV.

        Such a military order is therefore illegal, and claiming that such orders are “appealable” before an Israeli Court does nothing more than demonstrate that “Israeli Courts” claim to possess the right to “uphold” a manifestly illegal military order.

        Think about it.
        Think about it.
        Think about it.

        All that means is that Ginger’s claim makes those “Israeli courts” complicit in a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.

        Ginger is insisting that “Israeli courts” are entitled to slap lipstick on a pig.

        Nothing more.
        No less.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          a. Where in Article 49, GC IV, did you read the word “exile”?

          b. What is “transfer” within the meaning of Article 49, GC IV? (Pls. do not tell me what YOU think it means and/or want it to mean. Provide a definition generally accepted in the legal community and cite your source);

          c. What is “deportation” within the meaning of Article 49, GC IV? (Pls. do not tell me what YOU think it means and/or want it to mean. Provide a definition generally accepted in the legal community and cite your source);

          d. What is the difference between “transfer” and “deportation” within the meaning of Article 49, GC IV? (Pls. do not tell me what YOU think the difference(s) is/are and/or what you want it/them to be. Provide the differences generally accepted in the legal community and cite your source);

          e. Demonstrate to us – in a series of coherent legal arguments in ONE post – how a temporary administrative measure taken in the interest of public safety fits within the ambit of the definitions you provided re “transfer” or “deportation” or both.

          I want a STRUCTURED, purely legal discussions here, not rants and polemics. PLS. confine yourself to providing legal answers to the questions – else I won’t respond. I just want to be clear in case you see no response from me.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            This is the prohibition:
            “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

            Ginger: “a. Where in Article 49, GC IV, did you read the word ‘exile’?”

            The words are “forcible transfer” and “deportation”, Ginger.

            Al-Ghoul has just received a Military Order banning him from East Jerusalem, and he refuses to leave.

            Now, what do you think the IDF is going to do about his refusal to leave?

            Ginger: “b. What is “transfer” within”…

            Bzzzzzzt.

            The phrase is “forcible transfer”.

            Ginger: “d. What is the difference between “transfer” and “deportation” within”….

            Bzzzzzzt.

            The phrase is “forcible transfer”.

            Honestly, Ginger, you are not half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “e. Demonstrate to us – in a series of coherent legal arguments in ONE post – how a temporary administrative measure taken in the interest of public safety fits within the ambit of the definitions you provided re “transfer” or “deportation” or both.”

            Easy-peezie Lemon-squeezie.

            Article 49: …”are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

            Regardless. Of. Their. Motive.

            Honestly, Ginger, you are not even half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            I see you just hit the wall trying to answer the questions posed to and are now (as usual) looking for a face saving way out with incoherent rants and shouting declarations that have no basis in the law or fact! You can’t even define such simple terms as “transfer” and “deportation” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV even as you claim that the individuals in the instant case are being “transferred” and “deported” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV?! You see, YeahRight/John Boy, really only a fool, and I mean a complete fool, continuously assumes to understand the law and wants to lecture other about the law – regardless of how much he has PUBLICLY been shown to be nothing but a fool who has no iota of understanding of the legal stuff he pompously assumes to know and rant about ad nauseam.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “You can’t even define such simple terms as “transfer” and “deportation” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV even as you claim that the individuals in the instant case are being “transferred” and “deported” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV?”

            The phrase Article 49 uses is “forcible transfer”, Ginger, not “transfer”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “You can’t even define such simple terms as “transfer” and “deportation” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV”

            Ho-hum.

            The simple terms are actually “forcible transfer” and “deportation”, and those two terms have been very defined in the trials of the International Tribunal for Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia.

            The essential difference is that “deportation” is the forced displacement of protected persons OUTSIDE of national boundaries, while “forcible transfer” is the forced displacement of protected persons WITHIN national boundaries.

            Or, in the case of the latter, the precise definition is this: “Forcible transfer has been defined in the jurisprudence of the
            Tribunal as the forcible displacement of persons which may take place within national
            boundaries. The mens rea does not require the intent to transfer permanently.”

            In all three cases in this article the Military Order demands the “forcible transfer” of these individuals out of East Jerusalem, and the temporary nature of that displacement does not change the prohibition under Article 49.

            In the case of Al-Ghoul the Military Order forces him out of both East Jerusalem AND the West Bank, which indisputably amounts to “deportation”.

            And – again – the temporary nature of that deportation is not required for that Military Order to be prohibited by Article 49 of GCIV.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            You are still obfuscating and ranting. What you needed/need to do is very simple and all your rants up-thread are completely unnecessary!

            Pls.

            a. Provide the definitions (if possible in quotation marks). Don’t you even know what a “definition” is and how to provide one? Why do I have to go to extraordinary lengths to get you to do very simple and elementary stuff?

            b. Provide your SOURCES. Don’t you even know that a “source” is and how to provide it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “You are still obfuscating and ranting”

            I am the model of clarity, unlike you.

            Ginger: “a. Provide the definitions (if possible in quotation marks).”
            Ginger: “b. Provide your SOURCES.”

            sigh.

            Already done, but I’ll do it again because Ginger does not read…

            The source is the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

            ITCFY: “Forcible transfer has been defined in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal as the forcible displacement of persons which may take place within national boundaries. The mens rea does not require the intent to transfer permanently”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            RE “forcible transfer”
            “The essential difference is that “deportation” is the forced displacement of protected persons OUTSIDE of national boundaries, while “forcible transfer” is the forced displacement of protected persons WITHIN national boundaries.”

            Oy! Lets disregard your rants about “military orders” for a moment. In YOUR Muslim-Arab-logic, the Israelis living in Judea & Samaria, i.e. the ones you call “settlers” also constitute a violation of GC IV! Following the definition YOU gave now, that is no longer the case, because said Israelis (a) are not “protected persons”, (b) not “displaced”, let alone “forcibly displaced” (c) “inside” Israel’s “national boundaries” (you do not consider Judea & Samaria part of Israel or do you – suddenly)!

            Priceless. I pressured you for definitions for several reasons. You obfuscated and ranted, but finally you started providing YOUR definitions – and there you are right in the middle of several traps set for you to fall in. Keep making a public fool of yourself, “YeahRight/John Boy”!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            RE “deportation”
            “The essential difference is that “deportation” is the forced displacement of protected persons OUTSIDE of national boundaries, while “forcible transfer” is the forced displacement of protected persons WITHIN national boundaries.”

            Oy! Lets leave aside your rants about “military orders” for a moment. In YOUR Muslim-Arab-logic, the Israelis living in Judea & Samaria, i.e. the ones you call “settlers” also constitute a violation of GC IV! Following the definition YOU gave now, that is no longer the case, because said Israelis (a) are not “protected persons” and (b) not “displaced”, let alone “forcibly displaced” anywhere by anyone!

            Wao, this is wonderful news! “YeahRight/John Boy” is indeed a genius. No kidding!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            RE: “deportation of Al-Ghoul”

            “In the case of Al-Ghoul the Military Order forces him out of both East Jerusalem AND the West Bank, which indisputably amounts to “deportation”.

            Wrong!

            Al-Ghoul has FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT in all of Israel. He may also go to “PA-territory” (Nablus, Ramallah, etc.) Al-Ghoul may chose to lodge at the best Hotel in Tel Aviv, go to the beach, swim as much as he wants, eat as much sea-food as he wants. etc. Al-Ghoul is not being “deported” anywhere! If he chooses NOT to challenge the orders in Court and at the same time refuses to abide by said orders, he will go to jail. That’s all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Al-Ghoul has FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT in all of Israel.”

            Ginger, the prohibition on the forcible transfer of protected persons is not limited to physically picking them up by the lapels and dragging them by the heels.

            Threats intended to impel compliance is enough, and that was established in the Appeals Tribunal of the International Court for the Former Yugoslavia.

            Ginger: “If he chooses NOT to challenge the orders in Court and at the same time refuses to abide by said orders, he will go to jail. That’s all.”

            And…. there it is.

            That’s the threat, right there: Obey The Military Order To Leave Or You Will Be Slapped In Jail.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Following the definition YOU gave now, that is no longer the case, because said Israelis (a) are not “protected persons”, (b) not “displaced”, let alone “forcibly displaced” (c) “inside” Israel’s “national boundaries” (you do not consider Judea & Samaria part of Israel or do you – suddenly)! ”

            Ahem.

            The illegality of THEIR presence comes from paragraph Six of Article 49, it does not come from paragraph One.

            This paragraph, actually: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

            Note that the phrase “forcible transfer” is not used?

            The prohibition in paragraph Six clearly does not apply to Palestinians, but equally-clearly does apply to these Israeli colonists.

            Illegal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            a. According you YOUR own definition, (forcible) transfer and deportation involve (forcible) displacement. Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are not displaced under whatever definition. Your argument fails;

            b. Anyone who commits a crime incl. Al-Ghoul will be forcibly taken and detained and if necessary forcibly removed from his home and transferred to jail. That is not “transfer” within the meaning of GV IV;

            c. Any State party to the GC IV may take measures necessary to prevent crimes and protect public safety. That may include excluding certain individuals from certain places for a period of time. Such measure must be necessary and proportionate. That is the case with Al-Ghoul: his residence permit remains intact; less sever measures have not worked with him so far (he has been to jail before); the ban is for six months; there is a chance that the Court may reduce the period of time or vacate the order, or find other alternatives or uphold the order. The measure taken against Al-Ghoul does not come anywhere within the ambit of Article 49 GC and the fact that YOU claim otherwise and rant the whole day about it makes it no different. You thus may continue to delude yourself as to what Article 49 GC IV says (and Palestinians are no strangers to disastrous delusions!), but such delusions regard Israel not!

            I am sure you will produce another series of rants after this, because you don’t know when to stop/lack self control. But I am done here (and hope to control you by so doing). The floor is thus all yours – alone.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “a. According you YOUR own definition, (forcible) transfer and deportation involve (forcible) displacement. Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are not displaced under whatever definition. Your argument fails;”

            sigh

            “My Argument” relates to the first five paragraphs of Article 49, which strictly relates to the responsibilities that the occupying power has w.r.t. the movement of PROTECTED PERSONS within an occupied territory.

            Therefore the first five paragraphs of Article 49 are not applicable to those Israeli colonists, since they are not defined as PROTECTED PERSONS.

            Only paragraph six of Article 49 applies to those Israeli colonists, and that paragraph clearly places a unconditional prohibition on an occupying power from colonizing an occupied territory with its own citizens.

            Honestly, you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            So, AGAIN (!) define “transfer” and “deportation” within the meaning of Article 49 GC IV, imbecile. That was the FIRST EVER question and I purposefully did not ask about the different paragraphs. But after ranting the whole day, you are now changing tune claiming that you have not answered that question and started another rant. Good, PLEASE if you have different definitions for transfer and deportation within the meaning of Article 49 GC IV, provide ALL OF THEM now. I really fail to understand why it is too difficult for you to understand and do very simple stuff.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “So, AGAIN (!) define “transfer” and “deportation” within the meaning of Article 49 GC IV, imbecile.”

            sigh

            These two terms:
            a) “forcible transfer”
            b) “deport”
            have the same meaning in Geneva Convention IV as they have in every other part of International Humanitarian Law, since their meaning comes from International Customary Law.

            Their definition is therefore this:
            Both involve the forcible displacement of protected persons, with “deport” involving the person being displaced outside of national boundaries, while “forcible transfer” involving the person being displaced to Somewhere Else within the same territory.

            The Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia goes into this in very great depth, Ginger, so I suggest you look up their ruling in the “MILOMIR STAKIC” case.

            Here, actually….
            http://www.icty.org/x/cases/stakic/acjug/en/sta-aj060322e.pdf

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “b. Anyone who commits a crime incl. Al-Ghoul will be forcibly taken and detained and if necessary forcibly removed from his home and transferred to jail. That is not “transfer” within the meaning of GV IV;”

            I’m sorry, Ginger, but you don’t know what you are talking about.

            The ICTY tribunal clearly ruled that PHYSICAL force is not necessary for the prohibition to be applicable i.e. you don’t need to PHYSICALLY bundle the person onto a flatbed truck and drive them somewhere else against their will.

            It is enough that you THREATEN them with something nasty if they don’t obey the order to move.

            Ginger: …”forcibly removed from his home and transferred to jail”…

            And there it is, in all its gory glory; Ginger has just threatened jail time for anyone who doesn’t obey that Military Order.

            According to the ICTY that’s all that’s needed to make that Military Order a violation of the prohibition on “forcible transfer”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him”!

            YeahRight,take your filth to someone else. I have tolerated your imbecility enough. Be gone, now!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “YeahRight,take your filth to someone else. I have tolerated your imbecility enough. Be gone, now!”

            The Zionist mindset, writ large.

            Sunshine, you aren’t the editor of this web site. Your lack of tolerance is therefore the empty rattling of a tin cup.

            Nothing more.
            No less.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “c. Any State party to the GC IV may take measures necessary to prevent crimes and protect public safety.”

            Article 49: …”are prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            You are wrong, Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him”!

            YeahRight,take your filth and delusions to someone else. I have tolerated your imbecility enough. Be gone, now!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Be gone, now!”

            And Abracadabra to you too, Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Felix Reichert

      a. Source?
      d. “In all Western countries, an individual may be ordered not to contact a person or group of persons, not to enter a specific house or houses, not to enter a specific street or streets, not to enter a specific neighborhood or neighborhoods for a specific period of time and for specific reasons specified by law. ”

      True. For a day or so.
      If longer, only by court order. And even then:
      not for five months.

      And never for their own homes. Never. In NO western country. None. Not a single one.

      I conclude: Ginger is lying her ass off, again.

      Hasbara distortions, as always.

      Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        I’ll even give you the exact text of German law, just to prove you’re a liar:

        § 27a Polizeigesetz
        “Das Aufenthaltsverbot ist zeitlich und örtlich auf den zur Verhütung der Straftat erforderlichen Umfang zu beschränken (!) und darf räumlich nicht den Zugang zur Wohnung der betroffenen Person umfassen.”

        I’ll translate the relevant part:
        “…and may spatially not prevent access to the dwelling of the affected person.”

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          “b. “The orders” are appealable in Israeli Courts”

          Oh wow thanks for telling us that Eis I’m so relieved. Thank goodness I’m sure THAT will be a fair and transparent process. Whooowheee.

          Reply to Comment
      • Joel

        “And never for their own homes. Never. In NO western country. None. Not a single one.”

        No.
        My friend got served with a restraining order barring him from his home after his wife made a false report of spousal abuse. Happens all the time.

        Reply to Comment
        • Felix Reichert

          And this is usually the only exception. When another person living in THE SAME DWELLING (usually the same appartment) would be endangered by the affected person staying there.

          How was this the case here?
          Did they endanger their spouses? Did they have a history of domestic violence?

          And even if it is the case, according to German law such a measure can only be taken for a maximum of 2 weeks (and can then, in special circumstances, be extended another two weeks. After that, it cannot be extended).

          §27 PolG

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Mr. Reichert, unfortunately you have no idea of the German law and display woeful ignorance of- and the difference between (a) “Platzverweis”, (b) “Aufenthaltsverbot”, (c) “Wohnungsverweis”, (d) “Rückkehrverbot”, and (d) “Annäherungsverbot”!

            1. In Germany the cops may ban a person from entering a specific municipality for a period of THREE MONTHS! See § 27a, Abs. 1 PolG. The Court may issue an order (einstweilige Anordnungen) that is not limited to three months and as such may be less or more!

            2. In Germany the cops may ban a person from entering his own home for the period of 4 WEEKS – pending a Court order (einstweilige Verfügung) which may last as many months as the Court finds – depending on the nature of the danger, etc..

            For further reading, pls. see

            http://www.landesrecht-bw.de/jportal/;jsessionid=BAC392C75DC222A1863E8FA66DE6020E.jpa5?quelle=jlink&query=PolG+BW&max=true&aiz=true#jlr-PolGBW1992V6P27a

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            See § 27a, Abs. 2 PolG. (was meant)

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Okay, let’s be very clear here:

            I was partially wrong. You were completely wrong.

            What I quoted, and what you are quoting, is the police law of the federal state of Baden-Würtemberg. There is no police law that applies to the whole FRG.

            The law you are quoting, and that I was quoting, however, nowhere states that a “Platzverweis” is limited to three months, especially not in (clause) Abs. 1.
            A “Platzverweis” is supposed to be temporary, usually not longer than a day, and usually only limited to a very small area, not a whole municipality.

            While the law does not specifically mention a limit, it speaks of “vorrübergehend”, which would best be translated with “short-term” in this case.

            A “Platzverweis” is, as I said, usually NEVER applied for longer than 24 hours, usually only for a couple of hours.

            That’s where (clause) Abs. 2 comes into play (“Aufenthaltsverbot”), which allows the police to ban someone from a certain place for a longer period time, and for a bigger area (for example a whole municipality).

            But, as I mentioned, with the very explicit exception of his dwelling, and the path he needs to take to get there.

            Now this is where (clause) Abs. 3 comes into play. If, AND ONLY IF (!!!), the person would be a danger for another person living IN THE SAME DWELLING (usually his or her spouse), ONLY THEN can this person be banned from entering his own dwelling. For a maximum of 14 days, in very special circumstances for another 14 days (after that, no extension is possible).

            And of course nobody can be denied entry anywhere for non-violent political activism. And especially not without giving a reason.

            So Ginger, explain to me, how were the persons affected in this story a danger to people living in their own apartments?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            § 27a, Abs. 2, PolG

            „Die Polizei kann einer Person verbieten, einen bestimmten Ort, ein bestimmtes Gebiet innerhalb einer Gemeinde oder ein Gemeindegebiet zu betreten oder sich dort aufzuhalten, wenn Tatsachen die Annahme rechtfertigen, dass diese Person dort eine STRAFTAT begehen ODER zu ihrer BEGEHUN beitragen wird (Aufenthaltsverbot). Das Aufenthaltsverbot ist zeitlich und örtlich auf den zur Verhütung der Straftat erforderlichen Umfang zu beschränken und darf räumlich nicht den Zugang zur Wohnung der betroffenen Person umfassen. Es darf die Dauer von – DRIE MONATEN – nicht überschreiten.“

            Before we move any further, I would like you to either agree or deny that the above is the text of the law as of today. We will take it one by one, step by step – just don’t worry.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            DREI MONATEN (was meant – not “DRIE..”)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Mr. Reichert, while you are still doing a crash course (hope it doesn’t take you the whole night!) trying to figure out the German law, I will remind you that YOU said the following:

            “I’ll even give you the exact text of German law, just to prove you’re a liar:
            § 27a Polizeigesetz …..”

            Question, Felix:
            a. PLEASE, provide the EXACT and COMPLETE text of the “§ 27a Polizeigesetz …..” and
            b. Your Link!

            YOU, Felix, also referred to “§27 PolG”.

            Question, Felix:
            c. PLEASE, provide the complete text of the “§ 27 PolG” and
            d. Your Link!

            (Don’t worry about translation)

            (You pompously proclaimed that you are going to prove that I am a liar but you have already started admitting mistakes and contradicting yourself – apparently rattled and confused?! What kind of a buffoon are you, Felix!)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            „Es darf die Dauer von – DREI MONATEN – nicht überschreiten.“ (was meant in the quote of Para. 27a, Abs. 2 PolG, not DRIE).

            (Remember that other German Länder/Provinces have similar laws as above, incl. Essen/Nordrhein-Westfalen where YOU come from)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Felix Reichert is on the run – yet again!

            Reply to Comment
    3. Mike Panzone

      I have always loved Israel. It has always been a fovorite travel destination. but in the past year I have become so sickened by stories like this that I am getting to where i could care less. I also find myself running into more and more people, Jew and non-Jew alike, who are coming to feel the same way about your godless little country. Just as disgust toward muslim countries has increased in the past decade here in the US, so is disgust rising toward Israel and its settlers. These delusionals are going to be the death of Israel.

      Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        Wow, Israel does not want to lose you as a tourist. What can we do? Or maybe you can STFU.

        Reply to Comment
    4. The fact they can appeal in an Israeli court isn’t a news flash or encouraging to these men. They are activists but there’s only one translation for activist (if you are Palestinian) and that is terrorist. Democracy gets kicked in the hind quarters once again.

      “We are not afraid. We are fighting for our future and we have nothing to lose,” says Al-Ghoul. “We refuse this decision. It is our homeland. It is our basic right to live in our houses in Jerusalem. We must stop Israel and their racist policies of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment and forced displacement in Jerusalem. I call on the international community to act.”

      I think it’s safe to say that the international community is paying a little closer attention these days.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Joel

      “Al-Ghoul traces his family’s history in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan for four centuries”

      Silwan villagers shake down poor Jewish Jerusalemites, circa, 19th century.

      http://books.google.co.il/books?id=9Z2cFY9iGqgC&pg=PA244&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

      “The people of Siloam are a lawless set, credited with being the most unscrupulous ruffians in Palestine.”

      http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=20&Issue=3&ArticleID=3

      A noble heritage!

      No, but seriously. This ban sounds like an arbitrary, willfully spiteful denial of due process

      Reply to Comment
    6. Mikesailor

      Felix: Do you really want to know how dishonest both Ginger nad Joel are? Think of it this way. Israel has “annexed” East Jerusalem after militarily conquering the area in ’67 and duplicitously redrawing the boundaries. Now, tell me, if the area is “annexed”, then the citizenry are civilians NOT under occupation according to (and I refer to it facetiously)Israeli law. Ergo, military courts would not have jurisdiction to enter any kind of order against legal residents. Don’t you understand how far this silly country has descended into fascism? Apparentl any law doesn’t count if the most egregious and blatant miscarriages of justice can be heaped upon the defenceless non-Jews with the whoehearted approvel of dishonest cretins like Ginger aand Joel.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Exactly right, Mike.

        These are MILITARY ORDERS, yet Israel claims to have “annexed” East Jerusalem and extended its CIVILIAN legal jurisdiction to this territory.

        Ahem.

        Is Israel a military dictatorship?

        If the answer is “no” then what’s all this nonsense about Military Orders being imposed up residents of East Jerusalem?

        You are quite correct to point out that Israel is doing what it always does i.e. insist on having its cake and eat it too.

        Reply to Comment
      • GilGamesh

        Ginger and Joel do you want to know how dishonest or perhaps just plain ignorant Mike is. His country, the US, has a law that allows the military to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial,the National Defense Authorization Act. Not only that the The POTUS used the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40 , to have a US citizen killed via drone. In spite of this Mike is such a bigot that even though his own country passed and uses these laws he spends his time claiming Israel is fascist not even realizing that the country he is a citizen of has and has used similar laws on it’s own citizens.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          GG: …”National Defense Authorization Act”…

          sigh

          That’s a budget and expenditure bill i.e. it tells the US military how much money it can spend, and on what.

          Nothing more.
          No less.

          Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            Yeah Right, you are wrong. Sigh yourself.
            please see National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
            “”Section 1021…. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. … Section 1022. …. Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force … in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            You just can’t fix stupid!

            “”National Defense Authorization Act”… sigh That’s a budget and expenditure bill i.e. it tells the US military how much money it can spend, and on what. Nothing more.
            No less.”

            “YeahRight” is a breathtaking World Champion in stupidity and he continues to win the ultimate medal in stupidity at any given opportunity. And, you know, Gil, ya just can’t fix stupid!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: ““YeahRight” is a breathtaking World Champion in stupidity and he continues to win the ultimate medal in stupidity at any given opportunity. And, you know, Gil, ya just can’t fix stupid!”

            Is there an attempt at an argument anywhere in that post?

            Nah, none whatsoever.
            100% invective, and nothing more.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            GG: “Section 1021…. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force”

            I see the word “affirms”, which makes Section 1021 a “declaratory statement”.

            Soooo, referring back to your post….

            GG (then): “His country, the US, has a law that allows the military to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial,the National Defense Authorization Act.”

            You are wrong, the NDAA is not “a law” that “allows the military to detain US citizens indefinitely”, and if you want to prove otherwise you will certainly need to quote something other than a declaratory statement from Section 1021.

            I’ll also point out, of course, that the Laws of War allows a belligerent to “detain” enemy soldiers for the duration of the armed conflict.

            It’s called “Prisoner of War”, and no “trial” is required.

            But let’s look at what you are trying to prove i.e. you are quoting an Act wherein the Congress agrees with The President that enemy soldiers can be held as Prisoners of War during a “war on terror”.

            Fair enough, but you then take that as “proof” that the US Government has told the US Military that it can hold US Citizens indefinitely without trial.

            That is nonsense.

            The AUMF says that There Is A War On, and for the duration of that AUMF then the US Military can capture enemy soldiers and hold them as Prisoners of War.

            The nationality – the citizenship – of those enemy soldiers is irrelevant as far as that AUMF is concerned.

            All that matters is this:
            a) We Got’s Our War On.
            b) Them’s Thar’ Are Enemy Soldiers!
            c) Take ’em Prisoner, Pronto!

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            Well apparently you know more than the ACLU who state:

            On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into LAW for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.

            Capitalization of the word law is mine.
            Is the ACLU wrong when they use the term “codifying into LAW”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            GG: “Capitalization of the word law is mine.”

            Oh, I can use capitalization too.

            As in…..
            “to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people CAPTURED anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield”

            I am perfectly correct: the AUMF authorizes the President that There Is A War On, and for the duration of that “war on terror” the US military is authorized to CAPTURE enemy soldiers and hold them as Prisoners of War.

            And I am also perfectly correct that the NDAA’s section 1021 is nought but a declaratory statement that the Congress agrees with the President on that score.

            GG: “Is the ACLU wrong when they use the term “codifying into LAW”?”

            Yeah, it is. Shocking, no?

            Reply to Comment
          • GilGamesh

            Sorry but they are correct and you are wrong . I suggest you look up codifing laws.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Yeah, Right

      Ginger: “You can’t even define such simple terms as “transfer” and “deportation” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV even as you claim that the individuals in the instant case are being “transferred” and “deported” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV?”

      The phrase Article 49 uses is “forcible transfer”, Ginger, not “transfer”.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Your stupidity is really endless! What does this sentence tell you: “define “transfer” and “deportation” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV? Did you read the part in CAPITAL LETTERS? Do you even understand what “within the meaning of…” means? I specifically used capital letters to highlight it so that even an imbecile can understand the question! The word “forcible” is only an ADJECTIVE that qualifies the NOUN “transfer”! Begin with the NOUN and get into the qualification thereof thereafter. If you don’t even know the LEGAL meaning of the NOUN, qualifying it within the meaning of the Convention becomes an impossible mission!

        (and while you are at it, do not forget the Israelis living in Judea & Samaria, i.e. the ones you and your people call “settlers”; the adjective “forcible” “transferred” or “deported” suddenly disappears and becomes irrelevant when you discuss them within the meaning of Article 49 GC, IV! But I will get back to that at a different time).

        Don’t forget your SOURCES!

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Ginger: “The word “forcible” is only an ADJECTIVE that qualifies the NOUN “transfer”! ”

          The prohibition is on:
          a) “deportation”
          b) “forcible transfer”.

          That you keep insisting on using “transfer” and not “forcible transfer” indicates very clearly that you do not understand the nature of the prohibition.

          One. More. Time.

          The prohibition relates to the forced displacement of protected persons, and the difference between “deportation” and “forcible transfer” is that the former ejects the person OUTSIDE of the boundaries of the territory, whereas the latter displaces the person WITHIN the territory.

          Honestly, what’s so difficult to comprehend?

          Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Your stupidity is really endless! What does this sentence tell you: “define “transfer” and “deportation” WITHIN THE MEANING OF Article 49, GC IV? Do you even understand what “within the meaning of…” means? I specifically used capital letters to highlight it so that even an imbecile takes notice! The word “forcible” is only an ADJECTIVE that qualifies the NOUN “transfer”! Begin with the NOUN and get into the qualification(s) thereof thereafter. If you don’t even know the LEGAL meaning of the NOUN, qualifying it within the meaning of the Convention becomes an impossible mission!

        (and while you are at it, do not forget the Israelis living in Judea & Samaria, i.e. the ones you and your people call “settlers”; the adjective “forcible” “transferred” or “deported” suddenly disappears and becomes irrelevant when you discuss them within the meaning of Article 49 GC, IV! But we will come back to that letter on).

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          “….the adjective “forcible” RE “transferred” or “deported” suddenly disappears…” (was meant)

          Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Ginger: “But we will come back to that letter on”

          Letter’s not.

          Article 49 contains six paragraphs.

          The first five deal with the movement of protected persons (Palestinians) inside an occupied territory (East Jerusalem + West Bank).

          Those five paragraphs state a CONDITIONAL prohibition i.e. the occupying power can not “forcibly” displace protected persons, neither to areas outside that occupied territory (“deport”) nor to other areas within that occupied territory (“forcible transfer”).

          The sixth paragraph deals with a different situation i.e. the movement of the occupier’s own nationals (Israelis) into an occupied territory (East Jerusalem + West Bank).

          In that sixth paragraph the prohibition is UNCONDITIONAL i.e. it is prohibited regardless of the means used to carry it out.

          Force is prohibited.
          Inducement is prohibited.
          Throwing the floodgates open and covering one’s eyes is prohibited.

          It doesn’t matter: in paragraph six (unlike the five that precede it) the prohibition is UNCONDITIONAL.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            a. Israelis living in Judea and Samaria were not and are not forcibly or otherwise transferred or depurated there. They are proudly returning of their own free volition to their Ancestral Homeland. Deal with it! Your argument fails.
            b. Anyone who commits a crime incl. Al-Ghoul will be forcibly taken and detained and if necessary forcibly removed from his home and transferred to jail. That is not “transfer” within the meaning of GV IV;
            c. Any State party to the GC IV may take measures necessary to prevent crimes and protect public safety. That may include excluding certain individuals from certain places for a period of time. Such measure must be necessary and proportionate. That is the case with Al-Ghoul: his residence permit remains intact; less sever measures have not worked with him so far (he has been to jail before); the ban is for six months; there is a chance that the Court may reduce the period of time or vacate the order. The measure taken against Al-Ghoul does not come anywhere within the ambits of Article 49 GC and the fact that YOU claim otherwise and rant the whole day about it makes it no different. You thus may continue to delude yourself as to what Article 49 GC IV says (and Palestinians are no strangers to disastrous delusions!), but such delusions regard Israel not!

            But as the saying goes: “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him”!

            YeahRight, take your filth to someone else. I have tolerated your imbecility more than enough. Be gone, now!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “a. Israelis living in Judea and Samaria were not and are not forcibly or otherwise transferred or depurated there. They are proudly returning of their own free volition to their Ancestral Homeland”

            OK, one more time because this never gets old: the trick is to be found in this convoluted phrase “not forcibly or otherwise transferred”

            If an Israeli colonist willingly engages in Israel’s colonization of occupied territory then that citizen has just “transferred” to the West Bank.

            And paragraph six of Article 49 prohibits that from happening.

            Get This Through Your Skull: unlike the previous five paragraphs that last paragraph does not distinguish between “forcible transfer”, “willing transfer” or “oops, what just happened transfer”.

            All are “transfer”, and all are therefore prohibited.

            Ginger: “They are proudly returning of their own free volition”

            And the occupying power is “proudly violating” an unconditional prohibition every time it allows that transfer to take place.

            Because this is a truism: “Israel, the occupying power” has AUTHORITY over that occupied territory.

            It is therefore indisputable that nobody can “transfer” into that territory – proudly or otherwise – without the connivance of the occupying power.

            And Paragraph 6 of Article 49 prohibits the occupier from allowing such “transfers”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “b. Anyone who commits a crime incl. Al-Ghoul will be forcibly taken and detained and if necessary forcibly removed from his home and transferred to jail. That is not “transfer” within the meaning of GV IV;”

            And, again, one more time: “forcible transfer” does not require the physical removal of the protected person from the territory.

            It is enough that the occupier threaten the protected person with Dire Consequences if they do not heed the order to leave.

            And Ginger – once more, and I’ve lost count how many times that is now – has just threatened jail time for an Palestinian who refuses a Military Order demanding that they must go someplace else.

            That’s enough. That’s more than enough. That’s “forcible transfer”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “c. Any State party to the GC IV may take measures necessary to prevent crimes and protect public safety. That may include excluding certain individuals from certain places for a period of time.”

            Once more, yet again: Ginger has just claimed that a prohibition on the forcible transfer of protected persons can be evaded if only the occupier can think up with a Good Enough Motive to justify that Military Order.

            Meanwhile, Article 49 of GCIV insists that the forcible transfer of protected persons by the occupying power is “prohibited, regardless of motive”.

            Regardless. Of. Motive.

            Queue the reply: But! But! Prevent Crime! Protect Public Safety!

            Those are “motives”, Ginger, and Article 49 brooks no “motives”.

            It certainly doesn’t say “are prohibited, unless Ginger argues otherwise, in which case we bow to her wishes”.

            It clearly doesn’t say “are prohibited, unless it’s the IDF issuing the orders, in which case we concur”.

            It definitely doesn’t say “are prohibited, unless an Israeli Court says otherwise, in which case we are cool with it”.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Mikesailor

      Poor Gil Gamesh. Not only does he have to steal a Babylonian name (What, a good Jewish name is beyond you?) but then misstates the argument. The Authorization for Military Force only refers to people OUTSIDE the US. The military has no power to order anyone to do anything within the country. Now, Israel claims to have “annexed” Jerusalem and it is run by CIVILIAN law. So, what jurisdiction does a MLITARY court have to tell CIVILIANS within Israel, where to go or what to do? Is that simple enough for you? I tried not to use too many big words. As for transfer, Y.R. is exactly right. If this is a military occupation, the occupying power has no right to forcibly transfer the occupoied population. Yet, we have seen what scofflaws the Israelis are. But in this case, according to the Israelis themselves, the Jewusalem residents are NOT being occupied because Israel has “annexed” the area. So, hasbaristas, the IDF is either acting illegally or you really haven’t annexed the territory. Which is it? Or are your minds really too small and uneducated to answer?

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        a. The orders can be challenged in Israeli Civilian Courts and up-wards until in Israeli CIVILIAN SUPREME COURT! The fact that the orders were (allegedly) issued by the military is inconsequential – depending on the competency distribution within Israeli law! The Courts will examine the merits of the legal case against the orders and either (a) vacate the orders for violation of Israeli- and/or International law/Geneva Convention IV or (b) let the orders stand because it is of the opinion that no violations occurred. That’s how Courts operate anywhere in the Western World! What part of that is difficult to get through your thick head.

        b. Even Jewish Israelis are barred from entering certain places in J’lem. I am sure you know the places but wont rant about them;

        c. How did you – out of nowhere – get obsessed with Gil’s race/ethnicity based on her pen name? Whats wrong with you, mister?

        Reply to Comment
      • GilGamesh

        Keep trying to squirm out of it Mike. Laws allowing the military to arrest citizens are laws allowing the military to arrest citizens. Your backpedaling to only have Israel’s version be considered fascist only further shows your dishonesty. Your insistence that I must have a name that identifies me as Jewish only continues to out yourself as a bigot. Shall I wear a yellow star as well? Keep digging.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          GG: “Laws allowing the military to arrest citizens are laws allowing the military to arrest citizens.”

          Except…. you haven’t quoted a law that allows the military “to arrest citizens”.

          All you have done is produce quotes relating to a AUMF, which allows the military to conduct “warfare”, and in that to take enemy soldiers and treat them as Prisoners Of War.

          Reply to Comment
    9. Mikesailor

      Ginger: I’m not obsessed with Gil’s appellation. I only find it curious how Zionist Jews seem to always try to disguise themselves and pretend to be somebody else. Apparently he are too insecure to use an Israeli or Jewish name, instead opting to disguise himself as a Babylonian hero. Although in reality, there are no Zionist heroes so perhaps I can understand the use. As for you, I never saw anybody as obsessed with another as your obsession with Marnie’s Jewishness. You are one sad case. But neither of you have answered the question: What jurisdiction does a military court in Israel possess to order civilians NOT under military occupation to do anything? It’s a simple question. Why can’t either of your “great” minds answer it? Military vs. Civilian. What could be simpler? Instead we are regaled with stupidity masquerading as answers. The US military has NO jurisdiction over civilians in the US. Period. So, if Israeli courts have jurisdiction over CIVILIANS, in Jerusalem, then Jerusalem, or that part subject to the military, has not been annexed and is therefore under occupation. I am not arguing violations of international law but simple violations of Israeli law. Get it? Or are you too stupid to understand, in which case the Israeli government is not getting its money’s worth paying hasbarista trolls who are mentally ill-equipped to argue logically? By the way, appealing to the Israeli “Supreme” Court should be completely unnecessary, although with its rulings I can see why Israeli lawyers rank right up there with lawyers from Zimbabwe or North Korea. Any semi-competent first year law student should be able to answer this question.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Mikesailor, there are many ugly, hateful anti-Semitic creature rearing their ugly heads up against Zion demanding an end to the Jewish State while masquerading as “human rights” activists. YOU and that psychotic individual called “marnie” are among them. Unlike you, “manic marnie” claims to have “converted” to Judaism and that she is an Israeli living in Israel to cover-up her virulent anti-Semitism – but was ultimately proven to be a FRAUD on all aspects! Exposing her needed to be done and we will do it over again! That’s the ugly nature of yourself and your ilk whom we have to contend with to protect our only country. And fight you we will and will ultimately crush your ugly heads. While you obsess with Jews and Israel, the fact remains that Israel is way better than your own countries re human rights and judicial protection of the individual. Right now in YOUR own country, there are thousands of immigrants and their CHILDREN in jails awaiting deportation; there are waves of protest going on and your country men are begging for protection from the cops, etc. YOU do absolutely NOTHING for your own country and its poor and oppressed people. YOU also do absolutely NOTHING to help elsewhere in the world where ordinary civilians are dying in their thousands on a daily basis! No, no,no, Mikesailor, you are too obsessed with Jews and Israel to occupy yourself even with the problems of YOUR own country! The Jewish State occupies LESS than 1% of the entire Middle East and surrounded by over 20 Muslim Arab States. That Jewish State is for Mikesailor and his ilk an affront that must be removed and then all ills that have befallen mankind will be cured! You need serious help.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          “But neither of you have answered the question: What jurisdiction does a military court in Israel possess to order civilians NOT under military occupation to do anything? It’s a simple question.”

          a. In accordance with the Israeli Penal Code (1977), the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (1948) and the Criminal Procedures Law (1982), any Israeli or non-Israeli with Israeli residence permit who is charged with an offense which was committed inside Israel proper incl. ALL of Jerusalem fall under the jurisdiction Israeli civilian courts.

          b. Military Court Jurisdiction applies if their alleged offense was committed in or otherwise has ties to Judea & Samaria (West Bank) – as in the case of Al-Ghoul described in the current article we are discussing.

          Your question (and you have constantly framed it several times elsewhere in the most ridiculous and antagonistic ways) is based on a falsehood/false premise. But now, at least, you have your answer. Next time, be nice – if you expect to be treated nicely and quite demanding an end to the Jewish State because that is a declaration of war and no responsible Israeli will kindly accept constantly making the right of Israel to exist a topic for discussion, while they who want such discussions jealously guard and protect their own respective countries!

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: …”any Israeli or non-Israeli with Israeli residence permit who is charged with an offense”…

            Ahem. None of these three has been “charged with on offense”.

            Ginger:…”if their alleged offense was committed in or otherwise has ties to Judea & Samaria”…

            Ahem. No allegations of any offense has been levelled against any of those three.

            So what, exactly, are you talking about?

            These Military Orders contain no reason whatsoever for the “banning” of these three Palestinians, let alone contain an allegation that “an offense has been committed”.

            According to Ginger-Logic (I know, I know) those bans therefore have no standing whatsoever.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him”!

            YeahRight,what is being discussed is “jurisdiction” of which you have shown several times not to understand. Nothing more. Nothing less. Pls. take your emotional filth to someone else. I have tolerated your imbecility enough. Be gone, now!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            I’ll note – as I always do – that Ginger has not addressed the point i.e. this Military Order does not charge anyone with any “offense”.

            Her statement regarding who has “jurisdiction” to hear cases involving “charges of offenses committed” therefore is the very dictionary-definition of pointless.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Another surgical dissection, and take down, step by step by step. Operation complete. Better call in a good general hospital psychiatrist to treat the post-operative delirium and agitation however. It always ends with the same frantic, hand-waving, vituperative, comedic exit. What is “be gone, now!”? A magical incantation? Sorcery?

            Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            brian

            mikesailor asked about military court jurisidiction …. Gingi answered his question very well…..# the comment from yeahright has nothing to do with mikesailosrs question and Gingi does not have to address it……but you are tooooo stoooopid to notic.. #..as far as Gingi is concerned, you brian don’t exist….. .…and you cant handle it – continuously moaning and groaning for Gingi; you are embarrassing yourself….///… you attach yourself to every post from Gingi and start hallucinating profusely, envious an jealous of Gingi …/// go home you little stalker, find a girl and maybe you come to your senses….# Gingi is not interested, brien….

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            In a more serious vein, though Eis has been shown here to be legally incoherent, according to the LETTER of the law, what she does not seem to realize is how she also violates the SPIRIT of the law. This is a crucial matter. Letter and spirit. She seems to think that by trying to eke out some narrow, technical legal “gotcha!” (which she loses anyway) she would triumph, but all she does is expose her moral impoverishment with regard to fulfilling letter and spirit, in terms of treating both Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, as human beings, with equal protection and consideration. She might ponder the nuances encompassed by these distinctions, e.g.:

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

            The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the “letter”) of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Also, of course, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: you can not interpret a treaty in such a way as to defeat its declared purpose, or in any way that renders a result that is “manifestly absurd”.

            Which, really, is what Ginger is all about….

            Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            brian

            “In a more serious vein, though Eis has been shown here to be legally incoherent, according to the LETTER of the law, what she does not seem to realize is how she also violates the SPIRIT of the law. This is a crucial matter. Letter and spirit……”

            …..you are a douche, brian, you talk like a psychiatric patient giving his psychiatrist a lecture on pharmacology and medication and you end up talking blah blah blah …..# stalking Gingi is really making you go verrrrry crazy, brian; # what are you ranting about, brien, no one understand you because you are crazy, always moaning an’ groaning for Gingi….# go home brien and stop embarrassing yourself…..# Richard told you that before, brian, listen to Richard//..

            Reply to Comment
      • GilGamesh

        Bawhawhaw too funny. Do you think I really was trying to fool people into believing I was the mythic Gilgamesh? I probably fooled you but only because you had no idea who Gilgamesh was until you googled it.

        What I find curious is how those supposedly interested in human rights often turn out to be plain old bigots. You have outed yourself Mike.

        Reply to Comment
    10. Mikesailor

      Wow. Perhaps I should be honored. Ginger, Merav, Sluggo and Gil: the Four Horsemen of the hasbarista squad have come out from under their respective rocks to regale us with more of their BS (or HS more like). Funny how they still can’t answer the simple question. Ginger at least tries but her intellectual limitations are too obvious. THERE WERE NO CHARGES FILED. Can you understand that? So, what is the basis for the military to acquire jurisdiction over civilians? Do they merely make it up as they go along? Or is this akin to the movie “Animal House” where the fraternity in question was placed on “double secret probation”? I always thought Israel was more like “Animal Farm” with its Orwellian doublespeak and its prevailing ethos that: “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others”; but perhaps I got the barnyards mixed up. (Read a book sometimes. I mean beyond Zionist propaganda. Give your hasbarista paymasters their money’s worth.) Although the ad hominem attacks were expected, I find your utter lack of inventiveness appalling. The funniest was the combination of Sluggo and Gil. I wonder if Gil knows that in the Gil Gamesh epic, the hero was in love with his best friend and erstwhile male bedmate. Funny that Gil never knew that although I would never expect a cretinous waste of skin like Sluggo to know anything. I wonder if he can tie his shoes or if he has to use Velcro.

      Reply to Comment
      • GilGamesh

        First of all there is no such thing as the Gil Gamesh epic, It’s Gilgamesh moron. Secondly now I see besides being and idiot and a bigot you are also a homophobe. Keep digging Mike.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Now, listen very carefully:

        a. The goal of the law is the protection of Public- and legitimate Individual interests.

        b. In the legal science and the practice thereof, there are numerous legal instruments available to Law enforcement agencies to achieve said goals: (1) criminal law, (2) private law, (3) administrative law, (4) mediation and arbitrage. Criminal justice is consider an ‘ultimum remedium’ (i.e. instrument of last resort);

        c. Law enforcement agencies may – in accordance with the discretion granted to the by law – chose which of aforementioned instruments better serves to achieve the specific goal(s) of specific public interest(s) they want to archive at a given time. For example, an administrative law instrument may be used as a PREVENTIVE measure to protect public order/safety by banning a specific group of football hooligans from entering a specific neighborhood for a specific period of time, etc. if there is reasonable cause to believe that they will damage public safety (e.g. street fights, etc.);

        d. As said earlier, in accordance with the Israeli Penal Code (1977), the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (1948) and the Criminal Procedures Law (1982), any Israeli or non-Israeli with Israeli residence permit who is charged with an offense which was committed inside Israel proper incl. ALL of Jerusalem fall under the jurisdiction Israeli civilian courts. Civilian courts ALSO have jurisdiction in all cases where LE decides to apply a different law enforcement instrument outside of the criminal law, such as administrative law instruments of law enforcements;

        e. Military Court Jurisdiction applies if their alleged offense was committed in- or otherwise has ties to Judea & Samaria (West Bank) – as in the case of Al-Ghoul described in the current article we are discussing. Military Courts ALSO have jurisdiction in all cases where LE decides to apply a different law enforcement instrument outside of the criminal law, such as administrative law instruments of law enforcements;

        f. Al-Ghoul’ campaigns of violence, the planning and execution thereof extends to Judea & Samaria. Military Courts Jurisdiction applies. The ‘military Order’ in the case of Al-Ghoul et al. is an administrative law enforcement instrument (not a criminal one!). The goal thereof is the protection of public order and safety. Administrative Orders may NOT contain “criminal charges”, but rather specific demand(s) to “do X!” and/or “desist from doing Y!” and the reasons thereof! THIS IS THE CASE IN ALL WESTERN COUNTRIES (and I am talking about administrative orders here)! The reason(s) on which the Order rests MUST be made known to the recipient IN WRITING and he/she has AUTOMATIC right of appeal. If the Orders issued to Al-Ghoul et al. do NOT contain- or have attached to them the reason(s) thereof AND if said reason(s) have otherwise NOT been made known to the recipients IN WRITING in any other way, then the chance that the Court will NOT let the Orders stand is 100%.

        If you have more questions, you may ask them. (If you have rants, keep them to yourself!).

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Only Eis gets to rant. She’s special. Now listen very carefully Eis:

          Letter and Spirit.

          My rant was just 3 words. Yours was what, 457?

          Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxRZXd6r9E

            aaaah, the little stalker brian is at it again….. following Gingi around moaning and groaning for Gingi like the little stalker he is… very envious and jealous ; stop moaning and groaning for Gingi brian ….// all the posts you have been bombarding Gingi with go unreplied and many are really scary and point to a classic case of online stalking by a crazed person;…../// go home little stalker…. Richard told you that before….listen to Richard, brian.

            Reply to Comment
          • Barbara

            I think that Ginger’s post is very impressive and to the point.

            I think that this is a good opportunity for anyone interested in good discussion to do so. This is just my opinion, which is not really important.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ah, OK, Ginger’s Mom is back.

            Did you go away somewhere, Barbara?

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Ginger: “d. As said earlier, in accordance with the Israeli Penal Code (1977), the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (1948) and the Criminal Procedures Law (1982), any Israeli or non-Israeli with Israeli residence permit who is charged with an offense which was committed inside Israel proper incl. ALL of Jerusalem fall under the jurisdiction Israeli civilian courts.”

          sigh.

          Fail. No charge for any criminal offense has been laid against any of these men.

          Ginger: “e. Military Court Jurisdiction applies if their alleged offense was committed in- or otherwise has ties to Judea & Samaria (West Bank) – as in the case of Al-Ghoul described in the current article we are discussing.”

          sigh.

          Another fail.

          The Military Order is not “alleging that a criminal offense” was committed.

          Ginger: “The ‘military Order’ in the case of Al-Ghoul et al. is an administrative law enforcement instrument (not a criminal one!). The goal thereof is the protection of public order and safety.”

          Notice the sleight-of-hand that Ginger just pulled there?

          That’s right, she has gone from “for offenses committed” to shimmy-shimmy-shimmy over to some vague idea that The Public Needs To Be Protected From These People.

          Here, she even admits it….
          Ginger: “Administrative Orders may NOT contain “criminal charges”, but rather specific demand(s) to “do X!” and/or “desist from doing Y!” and the reasons thereof!”

          Of course, Ginger has just invalidated her points (d) and (e), which deal ONLY with jurisdictional issues relating to criminal offenses i.e. including either (d) or (e) in that post was an exercise in pointlessness.

          She is insisting that the IDF can forcibly remove Palestinians from East Jerusalem for… well… any reason it wants, really, because all the IDF needs to do is to say I Don’t Want You In Here.

          And, again, one more time: that is a clear violation of paragraph Six of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits that “regardless of motive”.

          I’ll be honest here and say that Ginger used six loooong paragraphs to state something that could have been stated in a single sentence i.e. Ginger Thinks That If She Can Wrap Her “Logic” Up Like A Pretzel Then Nobody Will Notice That It Doesn’t Actually Add Up.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            YeahRight, I bet you do your mother – giving your insult to Barbara who just offered her opinion. Get back to your mother!

            As I told you before:

            He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him”!

            This is no stuff for fools. Be gone now, imbecile!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Yeah Right: I must say I admire this extended exercise you have conducted here, because you have managed to clearly, patiently, and really painstakingly dissect each fail and each sleight of hand. This is educational, in the spirit of what this site is supposed to be all about. If one follows each refutation one sees anatomized the way the system of pseudo-legality in the occupied territories is set up to frustrate any attempt at clarity and accountability. Never mind justice. G. Eis’s entire pleading is an exercise in obfuscation, in avoiding accountability and fairness. You show that. Eis here is reduced to a spluttering “you do your mother.” Wow. A new low. This precedes the usual frantic, sinking ship exit schtick with magical incantation:

            “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him”! This is no stuff for fools. Be gone now, imbecile!”

            Without the slightest attempt at refutation. (I welcome anyone on this site to attempt a refutation.)

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Not really. You are not actually capable of an honest post are you? But “summarizer” certainly beats “sodomizer”–your role.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Thanks for recognizing my summary and additional commentary as accurate.

            Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            bryan/brian, you’re envious of Gingi and the fact that she treats you like you don’t exist makes you go crazzzy and put you on the path of compulsive obsessive stalking talking sh*t as a way to get back at her? go home, little stalker and quit “waxing erotic here” for Gingi ///…

            # and oh, before I forget, ‘year,right’ started the ‘mother-joke’. if you dont like ‘mother-jokes’ dont make one…. just saying….

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Ah but it takes a Gingglo to turn it crudely sexual about mothers. The thug is never far from the surface. Remember “Pupupuhplease Pedro, give him to me, I just need to slap him around a bit”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            Bryan/brian
            ….. still – and I quote you – “waxing erotic here” for Gingi, bryan? an’ now you are talking about “Gingglo”, brian? you’re envious of Gingi and the fact that she treats you like you don’t exist makes you go crazzzy and put you on the path of compulsive obsessive stalking talking sh*t as a way to get back at her? you are one little sick canine….# wondering how many complaints the cops have received against you for stalking and acting strange around women, bryan … # seems you have serious personal “issues” …# find a job an quit stalking Ginger…… you little stalker

            Reply to Comment
    11. Mikesailor

      Sluggo” Perhaps you would like to give an answer to my query? Apparently Ginger either doesn’t understand the query or is just too intellectually unable to answer. Would you like to give it a try or are you similarly handicapped? Hiding behind your ignorance is par for you but I am actually giving you the opportunity to show you are actually more than a cretinous troll. Are you up to it? I truly doubt it.

      Reply to Comment
      • Sluggo

        This is not an area of expertise of mine, so I am not comfortable offering an opinion. Instead, I will watch and learn

        Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Mikesailor,

        a. You asked a question re the jurisdiction of the military Court. You got a comprehensive answer.

        b. You changed your tune and asked another question re the Jurisdiction of Military Court in civilians cases where the involved civilians has not been “charged” with “a criminal offense”. AGAIN, You got detailed answers as any first year-, first semester student would get;

        c. If you have more questions re the same matter, you may ask!

        d. If you disagree with the answers provided to you, you are invited to make counter arguments. Because you have NOT pretended – yet – to be some kind of legal “expert” even as you are not (like some do), I will give you a very long leeway: make your arguments as you would ordinarily make to your friends. I will extract whatever has legal relevance from it and discuss it (promises).

        This is a CHALLENGE!

        (I debate you because I want fair and open minded people who follow this discussions to learn something from it. Israel is NOT wrong. You guys are! I debate you because I want to defeat you. My intentions are clear. If you are not timid, then present your arguments, Mikesailor. Don’t run!).

        Reply to Comment
    12. Mikesailor

      Ginger: Actually you still haven’t answered anything. In fact, you are attempting to defend the indefensible: ie. the “double secret ptobation” wherein a civilian living in an “annexed” part of Israel can be served with an “administrative” order by the militay without charges being listed or even an adversary hearing “before” such an “order” is issued. This isn’t “due process” but instead something akin to the “legalities” used by the worst totalitarian regimes. Congratulations. Your legal system ranks right up there with the systems in China, Zimbabwe and North Korea. Now tell me, has this extra-legal process ever been used against Jews? Have such administrative “banning” military orders ever been used against Jews without charges or notice of the reasons therefore?

      Reply to Comment
    13. Brian

      Spoken like someone who has never been oppressed. Spoken in the same contemptuous spirit of Netanyahu and Ya’alon and Lieberman. “They must lower their expectations.” In other words, “the Americans should stop this because it only encourages the Palestinians to think they have a chance in life to be treated as men and women with dignity. They could instead have wonderful futures as goyimmified untermenschen.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Nonsensical reference to palestinians in Chile plus devious appended insertion of “RoR” as a red herring aka distraction. To be followed by more distractions in an endless series of distracting off the point posts. Represents a newly-expanded troll-bot repertoire by Sluggo–expanded outside of the realm of anal sex.

        Reply to Comment
    14. Ginger Eis

      Mikesailor

      1. “Offense”: what is it?

      a. An offense is a violation of the law. Thus, an “offense” is not a-priori “a criminal offense” (as as you and some above assume).
      b. Some offenses are criminal offenses (because they are contained in the criminal code).
      c. Some of the offenses are administrative offenses (because they are designated as such by Administrative Statues), while some are private (because they are designated as such by the Civil Code, e.g. tort).

      2. Dealing with the office: how
      a. If the offense is criminal, then the Criminal Procedure Law applies and the accused gets “charged with an offense” or “indicted” (there is no material difference b/w the two terminologies. In the Us the prosecutor charges by information, while the Grand Jury indicts). The “offense charged” is ‘the material violation of the law’ by “the accused”.
      b. If the offense is Administrative, the Administrative Procedure Law applies in which a decision is taken. The decision is an Order to “do X” and/or “desist from Y”. The ground/reason for the Order is ‘the material violation of the law’ the offender perpetrated. In administrative Procedures, there are no “accused”, NO charges are filed and the Order may NOT- and does NOT “charge” anyone with “any offense” (this is very important to note)! This is the case in all Western countries!
      c. If the offense is private, Civil Procedure Law applies. There are no “accused” and no charges are filed, but instead a civil suit by the plaintiff (I am sure you know this one) which may not “charge” the defendant/respondent with “an offense”.
      d. Sometimes, Western governments use Administrative law instruments to fight criminal offenses. When they do that, the Administrative law procedure applies.

      3. BEFORE an “offense” is committed.

      The law/Law Enforcement operates in two different way:
      a. Repressive. This is the phase in which the commission of an “offense” is either ongoing or has ended. This is what I described above.
      b. Pro-active/preventive. This is the phase BEFORE an ‘offense” has been committed. What you have here is only reasonable cause that an offense is about to be committed. In this kind of scenario, LE is obligated and empowered by law to prevent the offense from being committed. In case of threats to public safety and security, the LE can act preventively by issuing Orders to specific person(s) or legal-person to “do X” and/or “not to do Y” if that will achieve the legitimate goal pursued.

      4. The Military Orders issued to Al-Ghoul et at are Administrative law instruments described above in nr. 2b and 3b. Al-Ghoul’s race/ethnicity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his campaigns of violence encompasses territories where the IDF has jurisdiction (see also nr. 5c below).

      5. Due process RE Al-Ghoul et al.

      a. The right to a legal defense is an inalienable and inviolable right in Israel – in all cases where a decision with a punitive character has been taken against an individual (regardless of whether or not said decision was made pursuant to the provision of administrative, private or criminal law). Al-Ghoul has the right to be heard and to present all arguments and evidence he deems fit to defend himself (before the decision is made and/or during an administrative appeal and/or during judicial review). Al-Ghoul et al. have the right to be represented by their own lawyers OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING. If they can’t pay their lawyers, the State of Israel pays them!

      b. As said earlier, if all the allegations made in this article we are discussing are true (and they are not, unless you have evidence to support said allegations!), then the chances that the Court will THROW OUT the Order is 100%! Al-Ghoul can head to the Court. The Order will NOT be executed while the appeal process is ongoing (if there is no automatic “stay”, a temporary injunction may be requested). The question is: why is he NOT doing that?

      c. “Now tell me, has this extra-legal process ever been used against Jews?”. The answer is YES, and the answer comes from an unlikely source:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/breaking-night-arrests-of-israeli-rightists

      And there is more. (If you have more questions, pls. ask I can’t compress everything in one post).

      Reply to Comment
      • Barbara

        Ginger, I don’t know if you are still studying or you have finished. In any event, you will make an excellent teacher. Thank you for the detailed information. Qualitative and very educative!

        Reply to Comment
      • Merav

        Wiewf, Gingi! ….you really did this as they do in school …nice stuff to read and learn from…

        # … also 98% – 99% of Palestinians live under PA-rule according to Oslo, not IDF….

        Reply to Comment
      • Theodore

        @ nr. 2

        “2. Dealing with the office: how?”

        My guess is you mean: ‘dealing with the ‘offense’ …’ – not “office”?

        The rest is superbly summarized and articulately stated.

        Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        More comedy. The same exercise in obfuscation, demolished step by painstaking step above, now recycled as if something…new! To be followed by the patented two-step: the usual frantic, hand-waving, sinking ship exit schtick–with added urbane “you do your mother” pleasantry—and then the “moaning groaning ging-baby moaning in the loaming” schtick. Wait for it…

        Reply to Comment
        • Theodore

          You are certainly not normal.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Wow! The brand new ‘Theodore.’ The professor schtick. Does he wear thick owlish glasses?

            Reply to Comment
    15. Spoken in the language of uncompromising, unashamed racist supremacists ala Kahane, Lehava, Feiglin, et al.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Mikesailor

      Ginger: You are full of it. There is no law, either criminal or administrative, which doesn’t offer the defendant (or recipient of an administrative order) the due process right of knowing the grounds uponm which the order is primulgated. In this case, apparently an “order” is issued without reciting any grounds or jurisdictional reasons therefore. I suppose the receiving party is supposed to “guess” as to what the alleged “offense” is supposed to be. That is the very definition of a lawless society. The dumbest part of your argument is attempting to equate a judicial review process as equal to due process notice and hearing BEFORE such an order takes effect. If you can’t understand the difference, then you are truly stupid for there is no civilized country which can promulgate an ORDER without offering a due process right to be heard BEFORE such an order takes effect. As to the suppposed grounds for Al-Ghouls order, if they existed they should have been recited in the order to at least apprise him of the supposed offense otherwise YOU are merely making up excuses without any foundation in fact. And, as to Merav’s point about Palestinians, it merely shows his ignorance and racism. It is completely irrelevent to the casr at hand. Even taking your best argument into account, the ‘MILITARY COURT” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) cannot order a legal resident of East Jerusalem to leave his residence in that city. Period. My advice: Don’t quit your day job, You are useless at this kind of thing. Although I don’t doubt Barbara’s admiration of Zionist dishonesty.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        1. “There is no law, either criminal or administrative, which doesn’t offer the defendant (or recipient of an administrative order) the due process right of knowing the grounds uponm which the order is primulgated.”

        We agree on that. And I did not tell you otherwise. Let us not make stuff up, no?

        2. “In this case, apparently an “order” is issued without reciting any grounds or jurisdictional reasons therefore.”

        Do you have any evidence for your claims? If the answer is yes, pls. provide said evidence. If the answer is no, I guess I need not tell you what you need to do. You are an intelligent man – after all.

        3. “The dumbest part of your argument is attempting to equate a judicial review process as equal to due process notice and hearing BEFORE such an order takes effect. If you can’t understand the difference, then you are truly stupid for there is no civilized country which can promulgate an ORDER without offering a due process right to be heard BEFORE such an order takes effect.”

        a. In the Western world, there are a series of Orders issued without the recipient being heard prior to the issuance thereof, e.g. an arrest warrant, a search warrant, an impoundment Order (protective orders), etc. REGARDLESS (I want to concentrate on this case without getting deeper into the nuances and subtleties of the legal practice and get you confused), any person who receives the kind of Oder issued to Al-Ghoul et al. has a right be heard BEFORE the Order is issued – unless the person (i) made clear that he does not want to be heard either by declaring as such or neglecting summons to appear or (ii) the urgency of the situation does not allow for a hearing. Not hearing the individual before issuing an Order is NOT a FATAL mistake if, and I mean IF, that mistake can be repaired on administrative appeal in which he/she is heard and given the opportunity to present all his arguments and evidence. Most adverse decisions made without hearing the individual concerned, hit the iceberg in Court, but some don’t if the evidence is so clear that hearing would not have made a difference (process-economy), (e.g. the recipient comes to Court and does not deny/refute the material allegation in the Order and/or does not claim that if he were heard he would have presented arguments and evidence that could have led to a different decision.). You do not a scintilla of evidence as to what happened in Al-Ghoul et al. case, do you? If yes, present said evidence.

        4. “As to the suppposed grounds for Al-Ghouls order, if they existed they should have been recited in the order to at least apprise him of the supposed offense otherwise YOU are merely making up excuses without any foundation in fact.”

        a. Do you have any evidence that the Order issued to Al-Ghoul et al. does not state the reason(s) on which they rests? Do you have any evidence that said reason were not provided to Al-Ghoul et al in a separate document? If the answer is yes, pls. provide said evidence. If the answer is no, I guess I need not tell you what you need to do. You are an intelligent man – after all.

        5. “the ‘MILITARY COURT” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) cannot order a legal resident of East Jerusalem to leave his residence in that city. Period.”

        You are correct! “the ‘MILITARY COURT” is an independent judicial body that reviews the decisions of the Executive and “cannot order a legal resident of East Jerusalem to leave his residence in that city. Period”. In this case “the ‘MILITARY COURT” did NOT order Al-Ghoul et al to do anything. An IDF-Commander did! As said before, if you assume everything in the article to be true, then the chances of the Order being thrown out by the Court is 100%. Why are Al-Ghoul et al not appealing the Orders? Besides that, Al-Ghoul et al. also have right to ANOTHER judicial review by the Israeli Supreme Court! Some top Western countries don’t grant so much judicial protection to their own citizens.

        6. “My advice: Don’t quit your day job, You are useless at this kind of thing. Although I don’t doubt Barbara’s admiration of Zionist dishonesty.”

        Why are you suddenly furious and erratic, Mike? We still have a looong way to go and furry will not serve as the evidence you owe everyone to support your claims, no?

        Reply to Comment
    17. Brian

      The ever decent Dan Meridor:

      Former Likud minister Dan Meridor launched a broadside against his old party on Thursday, strongly criticizing its promotion of the nation-state bill and its incitement against asylum seekers. Meridor stressed that he had no intention of being part of the Likud list for the upcoming elections.

      “Netanyahu won’t call me and he knows why… When I hear from the party that Arabs have human rights but not civil rights … when I hear that certain people are a cancer, when I hear statements that I don’t even want to repeat, could I really be their detergent and represent them? … No. If the party were to return to its historical path, national-liberal and not nationalistic, I would be happy to continue being part of it. … Israel doesn’t lead, doesn’t initiate … We can’t close our eyes to what is happening in Europe. They’re talking, parliament after parliament, about a Palestinian state. After all, Netanyahu is in favor of a state; that’s what he says. But he wants it to be agreed in negotiations that will lead to an agreement. So why oppose the idea of a state? I think we should bring a resolution to the Security Council that we are in favor of negotiations. … The ’67 borders with adjustments and no return to Israel. That’s what we should propose. If they oppose it because it denies the right of return, the world will know where the problem lies. If they support it, it will be an historic upheaval. … “our actions talk, not our words, because we allow settlement everywhere. Most Likud members, as well as Bennett and others say that there won’t be a Palestinian state, so the world asks, ‘well, what do you want then?’ We damage ourselves. … The only thing that interests them is the territories … Human rights, democracy, equality – none of those exist for them.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Merav

        Bryan

        …..yeah, brIan has ADHD and is a compulsive obsessive stalker and has no job….//…but brYan has ADHD and is a compulsive obsessive stalker and has no job….# aaaah brIan and brYan: the SAME canine with two heads….. hilarious! #… keep fooling yourself brIYan …… LOL…..what a fool……

        Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Last year Dan Meridor attacked his former Likud colleagues for promoting legislation that discriminated against Arabs and refugees and said that they were promoting apartheid policies.

        Here is an example of what Meridor means, as reported in Haaretz by Gideon Levy and Alex Levac:

        “The numbers speak for themselves: four demolitions, six razed houses, one husband, two wives, 17 children, 17 grandchildren.
        The story behind the numbers: Ali Moussa, a farmer who lives in the West Bank, has clung stubbornly to his land for more than 30 years. Repeatedly, forces of the Civil Administration, Israel’s governing body in the occupied territories, have demolished the houses Moussa has built. Repeatedly, he has rebuilt them. His applications for a construction permit have been ignored, but this is his home, this is his family’s land.
        The compound of Moussa’s ramshackle dwellings lies on a hill overlooking the valley through which Highway 60, linking Jerusalem and Bethlehem and Hebron, passes. On the hill across the valley rise the homes that are part of one of the unchecked expansions of the settlement of Efrat. They are a lot less legal than Moussa’s houses – the land does not legally belong to the settlers – but they, of course, are not under threat of demolition at the hands of the Civil Administration. Those dwellings are inhabited by Jews.
        If you want to see apartheid in action, here’s the place. There’s no need to elaborate. Here are Jews opposite Palestinians, landowners opposite trespassers. Apartheid in a nutshell.”

        Reply to Comment
        • Merav

          bryan an’ brian…..LOL….ehhh.. brIan an’ brYan make briyan with personality disorder….hilarious…!!!

          Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Additional commentary on the concept of ‘apartheid’:

          Now that Obama is free of election worries and showed, with his historic move on Cuba, that he could lead and move his country beyond 50 years of the fixed status quo–on the legacy of both colonialism and communism–it’s time for him now to do the same in regards to Israel’s colonialist status quo. The Israeli center has moved so far right that it is not clear what Israel the USA is supporting anymore.

          As Carolina Landsmann wrote in Haaretz today:

          “The United States must realize what Israel itself has begun to understand: The lunatic fringe of 1995 is the political center of the 2015 elections. For an important part of the Israeli political map, which could take control in democratic elections, “apartheid” is not a curse but a plan. Since Israel is divided, the United States cannot go on simply being “Israel’s friend,” because who is that “Israel”? The political confusion in Israel is so great that it is not clear whose political interest the American veto serves, and whose is served by lifting it. Thus, in concert with the dramatic internal political struggle over the identity of the State of Israel, the United States must stop asking what Israel wants, and instead ask what the United States wants. Does America welcome the birth of a Palestinian state? If so, let it lift its veto and break the last chain that binds the world to the past.”

          Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Apparently ‘Merav’ hates the ever decent Dan Meridor. He or she should explain him/herself.

        Reply to Comment
        • Merav

          bryan / brian

          …..’splain this one first

          bryan an’ brian…..LOL….ehhh.. brIan an’ brYan make the briyan with personality disorder….hilarious…!!!

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Why do you hate Dan Meridor?

            Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          More from decent Dan Meridor:

          Former justice minister Dan Meridor trashes ‘Jewish state bill’–says law’s proponents are singling out minorities for narrow political gain. In an interview with Israel Radio, Meridor took issue with the bill’s treatment of the country’s Arab minority, and accused its proponents of seeking political gain at the expense of Israel’s integrity as a democratic country.

          “The current bill is completely superfluous. Who will benefit from a law saying that the state is the nation state of the Jewish people? Of course that is what it is. We and our parents devoted our entire lives to building this country for the Jewish people. You can’t have a law that sets down the state’s obligation to promote the heritage and culture of the majority and not the minority. Doesn’t the minority have a right, like Jews anywhere else in the world have the right? …bills that have no purpose other than short-term political gain and create unnecessary complications both on the international and the internal level. You can’t mess around with the constitution for political ends. Therefore, if it isn’t too late to invoke reason – let it go, set it aside, it’s pointless.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            brIan / brYan

            …no job yet an’ not lookin’ for one, bryan/brian? hmm…..ur poor lonely canine-life is only about Jews, Jews, Jews, Jews ……u’re ‘a’ property of Jews, bryian……. # you even paid haaretz subscription for your daily addiction: Jews, Jews, Jews…… an’ still no job….# and you have multiple identities to disguise yourself: brIan and brYan ….aahh bryan and brian: SAME canine with two heada protruding from one short neck…….hillarious!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            More about decent Dan, for your reading pleasure. This is from Uzi Baram in Haaretz:

            “The year 2014 has been one of the worst that the State of Israel has ever known. This is the year that the hatred, racism and aspirations for Jewish exclusivity crawled out of their holes. These values are being championed by familiar faces, who have public status and access to the media. We saw the slide and we watched, concerned, as the nationalist and religious slogans began to assume an increasingly central place in the public discourse. But in retrospect, we failed to realize at what point we should have started to comprehend the direction of things.

            That moment occurred at the Likud convention on November 26, 2012, when the party’s Knesset election slate was set, and people like Michael Eitan, Dan Meridor and Benny Begin were dropped from its ticket. The removal of Eitan and Meridor was expected because of their diplomatic and civic positions, and their attitude toward the rule of law, but the booting of Begin should have set alarm bells ringing across the spectrum.

            That the party had dared to dump Begin, the son of revered Likud leader Menachem Begin, was incredible. Benny Begin was a veteran purveyor of right-wing diplomatic positions, an ardent opponent of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas, and a moral asset to the tainted movement. However, the audacious members booted him out and we saw it as a natural development at the time….”

            Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            #….job, job, job, you little canine, find a job….# get a life an’ save urself from ur addiction to jews….//..

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The Meridor chronicles, part 6. Thank you for all your encouragement Meravie. I couldn’t have done it without you.
            This time, from Ari Shavit in Haaretz, on decent, balanced Dan Meridor:

            “Never has there been such a comprehensive, serious and profound offensive on Zionism.

            The Jewish nation-state law? This is an anti-Zionist law that shatters the complex, delicate, vital idea of a Jewish democratic state. When the Jewish element of our life is placed above the democratic one, they both vaporize. In the 21st century there’s no Jewish state that isn’t democratic, and in the Middle East there’s no democratic state that isn’t Jewish.

            So it’s imperative to preserve the precise balance between the two elements. That’s what Herzl, Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion did in their time, and what Aharon Barak, Dan Meridor and Amnon Rubinstein did in theirs. That’s how Israel developed as a free state in the thicket of its contradictions.

            But the savages of the anti-liberal Likud and the anti-democratic Habayit Hayehudi don’t understand this. The lowbrows of nationalist populism don’t grasp the basic premises of the Herzlian movement. When they lay their rough hand on the unique conceptual structure of Israel, everything crumbles. What was built so laboriously over more than 100 years of enlightened Zionism is eradicated and vilified. What was built in 66 years of Israeli democracy is defiled.

            As the new Muslim fanatics are trying to drag Islam back to the Middle Ages, so the new Jewish chauvinists are trying to drag Jewish nationalism to the darkness of previous centuries. They have taken leave of their senses. Since its beginning, Zionism hasn’t had such bitter, dangerous enemies as the zealots sitting in Jerusalem today and doing everything they can to destroy the temple….”

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The Meridor Chronicles, Part 7. This time, referencing the ever decent and moderate Dan Meridor, we feature the sophisticated Israeli sociologist, Eva Illouz (excerpting the tiniest fraction of Illouz’s long, rich, rewarding analysis):

            http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.632590

            “Likud is now a very different party from the one that once represented a liberal and secular worldview. It contains a highly committed faction that combines religious Jewish elements with a hard-line view of foreign affairs. Running on a joint list last year with Yisrael Beiteinu, it earned 20 seats in the parliament.

            The party’s radicalization was most obvious in the fact that senior MKs like Benny Begin, Michael Eitan and Dan Meridor, known for their moderate views and for being defenders of the rule of law, were ousted by other members. Their spots were taken by young and radical MKs, such as Tzipi Hotovely, Danny Danon, Moshe Feiglin, Miri Regev and Yariv Levin, who advocate extreme right-wing policies. These MKs often express themselves against Arab minorities, Arab countries and human rights organizations, and promote laws that reflect this outlook. The presence of these new members has led to the somewhat depressing situation in which Benjamin Netanyahu – who used to be in the radical fringe of the Likud – is now a moderate within his own party.

            These three parties – Yisrael Beiteinu, Habayit Hayehudi and Likud – share an ideological outlook in which the preservation of Jewish religion or Jewish ethnic identity are intrinsic goals of politics, which in turn justify the continued economic and military domination of Palestinians in the settlements and the liquidation of many key aspects of Israeli democracy.”

            Reply to Comment
    18. Click here to load previous comments