And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
And I've repeatedly debunked why the law in question is being applied incorrectly. In any case, repeating something does not make it correct.
> And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
I've been posting during waking hours in the land in question. I live here, I've been researching this for almost a year and a half. I understand that you live far away and sleep while events are unfolding here, but please don't try to burden me with that.
> You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
I do not believe that attacking my reading ability actually promotes either one of us understanding.
> As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
You might not have a stance, but you seem to be affected by the "it's repeated often, so it must be true" thought process - you even defend it.
> You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
Neither. I have addressed the concerns presented towards me. The laws are actually quite clear. Try to read them, specifically the 49th article of the geneva convention that people like to throw around, without the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. You will see that these laws apply to states, not people. Furthermore they protect people, not land or political entities.
> And I've repeatedly debunked why the law in question is being applied incorrectly.
You should take up your case for why this is wrong with the lawyers who proof read the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
> In any case, repeating something does not make it correct.
Indeed. This entire thread is repleat with comments by yourself repeating the claim that you have debunked this interpretation.
> You might not have a stance, but you seem to be affected by the "it's repeated often, so it must be true" thought process - you even defend it.
Read more carefully - I have stated an official position in an official report and referenced it.
This is exactly how we reported such things in the mineral intelligence and energy intelligence companies we launched and later sold on, one to Standard and Poor (of the S&P index).
> The laws are actually quite clear.
Indeed.
You can easily see how the UN Human Rights lawyers read and applied the convention in the case where an occupying country failed to contain their citizens, and went further to support them.
That is the inaction and the action of the state at fault.
And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.