Jews called in Christ: Begun in 2002, judged illegal 2004, Israel’s apartheid wall goes on regardless

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Begun in 2002, judged illegal 2004, Israel’s apartheid wall goes on regardless | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

The true God who is the eternal I AM prophesied through His servants the prophets of the coming of the Messiah, who is the only Saviour of the world. The form of salvation, His Cross, is shown by Isaiah 52- 53, see here: Jews called in Christ: St. Isaiah and the time of His appearing and His sacrifice on His Most Holy Cross for our salvation is told in Daniel 9 in St. Daniel’s 70 weeks of years prophecy.

For all Jews wishing to convert sincerely from the heart to Jesus Christ now, here is a prayer based on the biblical Hebrew of the prophets of the Old Testament and the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament and the New Testament and Arabic.

(The Arabic, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, means the same as God Almighty, or 'O Theos 'O Pantocrator, in Septuagint Greek.)

In the below “Dam (Blood) Kadosh (Holy) bet Yeshua ha Maschiach (Jesus Christ) kanawn anawim (have mercy on Your faithful [those who turn to God by the shed Blood of Christ on Calvary])” is asking for God's forgiveness by the shed Holy Blood of Christ – which is the only forgiveness there is from God for sin.

Shalom Aleichem bet Baruch Adonai Yahweh Eloheiunu Yahweh echad dérekh ben Yahweh bar Elohim Adonai Yeshua ha Maschiach b'tókh Ruach Elohim Yahweh Adonai

Adonai Yahweh El Olam kanawn anawim

Adonai Yeshua ha Maschiach kanawn anawim

Adonai Ruach Elohim Yahweh kanawn anawim

Adonai Yahweh Eloheiunu Yahweh echad kanawn anawim

Adonai Yahweh Elohim Kadosh kanawn anawim

Adonai Yeshua ha Maschiach kanawn anawim

Dam Kadosh bet Yeshua ha Maschiach kanawn anawim

'Agious 'Agious 'Agious Kurios 'O Theos 'O Pantocrator Elieson

Kyrie Elieson

Christie Elieson

Kyrie Elieson

'Agious 'Agious 'Agious Kurios 'O Theos 'O Pantocrator, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, Elieson

Baruch Adonai Yahweh Eloheuinu Yahweh echad Elohiko Hashamaim

Most blessed Lord Yahweh God-plural personhood Yahweh composite-Unity God higher than the highest heaven

Shamaim Hashamaim Eloueth Ahiyah asher Ahiyah

higher than the highest heaven God I am (Yah) that I am (Yah)

El Olam Yahweh El Elyown Yahweh Elohim eth Yaoth Elohim Qadosh
God eternal Yahweh Most High Yahweh God you Yah who drives the evil powers to flight Holy God

Eloah Israel El Shaddai

God of Israel God Almighty

Moshawah

Our Saviour

Adonai Eloah Melek Eloah miqqadash

Lord God King God our Sanctifier

El Israel Anawim

God of Israel Your faithful

El Elohim Yahweh El Olam eth Abba Our Father of Lights Holy with

God of Gods (most high) Yahweh God eternal you

Whom there is no variation or shadow of turning

ben Yahweh bar Elohim

Son of Yahweh Son of God

Yahweh Shamah Emmanuel Yeshua ha Maschiach Jesus Christ Our only Lord

Yahweh Christ perfect servant of hearing God God with us Jesus the Messiah

and Saviour

Ruach Yahweh Chokmah Abiyr Gebuwrah Neshamah Yahweh

Spirit of Yahweh Wisdom Might Power Spirit-Breath of Yahweh

Holy Spirit Life Quickening Breath of Life Energy our

Paraclete

Ruach Elohim Olam Yahweh Borea Emeth Huy Eloah Chay Melek Olam Eloah

Spirit of God eternal Yahweh Creator True Living God and King Immortal God of Hosts

Sabaoth Holy Trinity Adorable Unity

Eloah Anawim with and

God of the faithful

by the prayer and company of all Your

Elect Doxas and Anawim for and with us unceasingly kanawn Anawim

have mercy on Your faithful

Our Only

KANNAW

Our Only
Holy Lord God Who Created and Redeemed us
TSIDKENOU

Our Only Righteousness

YIREH

Our Only Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world

NISSI

Our Only Sacrifice

MELCHISEDECH

Our Only Priest King

MELEK

Our Only Sovereign King of kings and Lord of lords

SHALOM

Our Only Peace from above

KOHANE

Our Only High Priest

ROHI

Our Only Good Shepherd and Overseer of our souls

ROPHE

Our Only Healer and Miracle Worker

MIQQADOSH

Our Only Sanctifier

HOLY HOLY HOLY LORD GOD PANTOCRATOR

Who is and was and is to come

Unceasingly

to Whom be all the

LOVE

ADORATION

AUTHORITY

GLORY

HONOR

OBEDIENCE

THANKSGIVING

POWER

DIVINITY

RICHES

WISDOM

STRENGTH

BLESSING

DOMINION

SALVATION

PRAISE

WORSHIP

SERVICE

DEEDS

INNOCENCE

FAITH

PREACHINGS

PROPHECIES

PRAYERS

EXALTATION

THANKSGIVING

WE LOVE YOU FOR YOU FIRST LOVED US

WITH ALL THANKSGIVING

With and by the prayer and company of all Your elect angels and saints, for and with us unceasingly,

especially Your holy

SERAFIM

CHERUBIM

KURIOTETES

ARCHES

especially

St. Michael

St. Gabriel holy Archangelos

EXOUSIAS

DUNAMEIS

ANGELOS

Grant us Your gifts and mercies, especially Your Holy

CHOKMAH WISDOM FIRE OF LOVE OF WISDOM YOURSELF HOLY LIFE

BIYNAH UNDERSTANDING WISDOM OF SUPERNATURAL KNOWLEDGE PROPHECY AND MIRACLES

ETSAH COUNSEL MIGHT OF SANCTIFYING LOVE IN FAITH

GEBUWRAH POWER STRENGTH HEALINGS MIRACLES

DAATH KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW ONLY THE GOOD DISCERNMENT OF SPIRITS AUTHORITY AND STRENGTH REPELLING ALL EVIL SPIRITS INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM US UNCEASINGLY

YIRAH GODLINESS ENERGY OF MIRACLES IN THE UNITY OF GOD TONGUES AND TRANSLATION

AHABAH AGAPE PHILADELPHIA LOVE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL THE LOVE OF GOD JESUS CHRIST OUR ONLY LORD AND SAVIOUR

See this: Palestine Cry

Begun in 2002, judged illegal 2004, Israel’s apartheid wall goes on regardless | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

Begun in 2002, judged illegal 2004, Israel’s apartheid wall goes on regardless

Photo by S’ra DeSantis, from Vermonters for a Just Peace
European campaign against Israel’s apartheid wall launched in the Hague

#10Years2Long

By Palestine Information Centre
July 02, 2012

THE HAGUE– The Hague-based European initiative against the wall and settlements launched on Sunday an information campaign against Israel’s segregation wall and settlement expansion in the West Bank.

“No to the wall … no to settlements” is the slogan for its campaign that includes sit-ins, protests, symposiums and social networking.

Head of the European initiative Amin Abu Rashed said in a press release that the campaign was launched on the eighth anniversary of the resolution against the segregation wall that was issued by the international court of justice in 2004.

Abu Rashid added that the campaign is aimed at renewing international moves to condemn Israel’s settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian lands.

He noted that the campaign started on Sunday and would end on July 9, the same day the international court of justice issued its resolution against the wall.

The anti-wall activist affirmed that the campaign would include meetings with officials from international legal and humanitarian organizations and the UN to hand them a research study about the adverse impacts of the wall on the lives of Palestinians in the occupied territories during the past eight years.

A number of symposiums about the Israeli apartheid wall and settlement activities will be organized in a number of Arab and foreign countries, he added.

He stressed that the European initiative would be working keenly during its campaign on delivering a message to the international court of justice emphasizing the need for forming an executive body able to enforce its resolution against the wall.

The European initiative against the wall and settlements is headquartered in the Hague, Netherlands, and was established on the first of June 2010. It is a consortium of many European groups and human rights organizations which oppose Israel’s apartheid wall and settlement activities in the Palestinian lands.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

ADVISORY OPINION

The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states the legal consequences arising from that illegality

International Court of Justice, Press Release
July 9, 2004

THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

The Court responds to the question as follows:
- “A. By fourteen votes to one,
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

- “B. By fourteen votes to one,
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

- “C. By fourteen votes to one,
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

- “D. By thirteen votes to two,
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

- “E. By fourteen votes to one,
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”
Reasoning of the Court

The Advisory Opinion is divided into three parts: jurisdiction and judicial propriety; legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; legal consequences of the breaches found.

Jurisdiction of the Court and judicial propriety
The Court states that when it is seised of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give that opinion. It finds that the General Assembly, which requested the opinion by resolution ES‑10/14 of 8 December 2003, is authorized to do so by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter.

The Court, as it has sometimes done in the past, then gives certain indications as to the relationship between the question on which the advisory opinion is requested and the activities of the General Assembly. It finds that the General Assembly, in requesting an advisory opinion from the Court, did not exceed its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that, while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation, the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests.

The Court further refers to the fact that the General Assembly adopted resolution ES‑10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V), which provides that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. The Court finds that the conditions laid down by that resolution were met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened; that was in particular true when the General Assembly decided to request an opinion, as the Security Council was at that time unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member.

The Court then rejects the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed in the request is not a legal one.

Having established its jurisdiction, the Court considers the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalls that the lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction has no bearing on its jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. It adds that the giving of an opinion would not have the effect, in the present case, of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, given that the question on which the General Assembly requested an opinion is located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and that it is of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor does the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated solution to the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. It further finds it has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and emphasizes that it is for the General Assembly to assess the usefulness of that opinion. The Court concludes from the foregoing that there is no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.

Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law.

The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self‑determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court ascertains whether the construction of the wall has violated the above‑mentioned rules and principles. It first observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 percent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law. It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated régime “create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, . . . [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation”. The Court notes that the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel, and deplored by the Security Council, with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements, and that it entails further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It finds that the “construction [of the wall], along with measures taken previously, . . . severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right”.

The Court then considers the information furnished to it regarding the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (destruction or requisition of private property, restrictions on freedom of movement, confiscation of agricultural land, cutting‑off of access to primary water sources, etc.). It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated régime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

The Court observes that certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments include qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation which may be invoked by States parties, inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so require. It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”.

In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

Legal consequences of the violations found
The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States.

In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self‑determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation. Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.

As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination is brought to an end. In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for . . . efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.
Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: Judge Shi, President; Judge Ranjeva, Vice‑President; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma and Tomka; Registrar Couvreur.

Judges Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans and Al‑Khasawneh append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion. Judge Buergenthal appends a declaration. Judges Elaraby and Owada append separate opinions.
__________
A summary of the Advisory Opinion is published in the document entitled “Summary No. 2004/2”, to which summaries of the declaration and separate opinions appended to the Advisory Opinion are attached. This Press Communiqué, the summary of the Advisory Opinion and the latter’s full text can also be accessed on the Court’s website by clicking on “Docket” and “Decisions” (www.icj-cij.org).

Jews called in Christ

CLICK ON LINK

Pages

My Blog List

Jesus Christ the Saviour

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Begun in 2002, judged illegal 2004, Israel’s apartheid wall goes on regardless | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

Begun in 2002, judged illegal 2004, Israel’s apartheid wall goes on regardless

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Coming of the Antichrist

The Catholic Creed

Parousia of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Justice of God

Traditional Catholic Prayers

Leila Hussein

Look up, your redemption is at hand

Palestine Cry

Palestine Cry

Palestine Cry

Communist World Government

God and His Messiah Jesus Christ our Lord - our right and duty to witness to Him

Miko's Blog

Iraq Cry

Syria

The Final Trial

Apostasy

The Illuminati

Good versus evil

Good versus evil

Pashtun Resist

Jews called in Christ

Ishtar Rising...

Culture