Israel threatens to cut off water supply to Church of the Holy Sepulchre

  • Thread starter Thread starter TempleofTheSoul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My prayers are that reason/logic wins in this situation and that 40 years of previous water use be forgotten. I can see if they want to charge for any future use of water, which would be fair…anything else is unreasonable.

God bless
 
Israel has no business demanding any water bills from The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the first place as it isn’t even in Israel. The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem has not been recognised by any other country in the world and has been repeatedly condemned in the Security Council as illegal. Don’t let this most crucial fact slip under the radar at this is the heart of the issue.
 
JadeStarr said:
Sorry, but the younger generation uses this term to mean backward, not as an insult to
Down Syndrome citizens.
Click to expand...
Oh, the words “retard” or “retarded” have been used disdain or disapproval for a very long time. Certainly since 1970 which is about as far back as my memories go.
JadeStarr said:
I understand that you may think of your child as retarded but that term now means foolish thinking, having nothing to do with you or your son.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I don’t have any children. I am not sure if your comment was addressed to me, but you were responding to a quote of me, so I wanted to be clear about that.
Kadaveri said:
Israel has no business demanding any water bills from The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the first place as it isn’t even in Israel. The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem has not been recognised by any other country in the world and has been repeatedly condemned in the Security Council as illegal. Don’t let this most crucial fact slip under the radar at this is the heart of the issue.
Click to expand...
You raise a difficult subject, and its one I hadn’t considered. I suppose it comes down to whether the Church of the Holy Sepulcher accepts that authority of the City of Jerusalem. I suspect they do, since they have been using municipal water. But it is a point which is worth clarifying.
 
Dale_M said:
Oh, the words “retard” or “retarded” have been used disdain or disapproval for a very long time. Certainly since 1970 which is about as far back as my memories go.

Just to clarify, I don’t have any children. I am not sure if your comment was addressed to me, but you were responding to a quote of me, so I wanted to be clear about that.

You raise a difficult subject, and its one I hadn’t considered. I suppose it comes down to whether the Church of the Holy Sepulcher accepts that authority of the City of Jerusalem. I suspect they do, since they have been using municipal water. But it is a point which is worth clarifying.
Click to expand...
I apologize for the sloppy response. I meant to address the poster who stated that she/he was offended by the word retarded as used by another poster.
 
BibleWalks said:
The Church can return to the natural water supply which is located under it… Inside the church of St. Helen, on the side of the Holy Sepulcher, is a large underground water cistern that is accessed by a staircase. According to the Coptic church the water cistern was discovered in the 4th C by Constantine’s mother St. Helen, and used to provide water to the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

👍 Checkour web page on Via Dolorosa station #9 where the cistern is located.
Click to expand...
Well, unless there’s a law against it, you’ve just solved the problem!
 
This could be a little pay back for that Israel sees as the Christian sympathy and support for the Palestinians.
 
Kadaveri said:
Israel has no business demanding any water bills from The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the first place as it isn’t even in Israel. The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem has not been recognised by any other country in the world and has been repeatedly condemned in the Security Council as illegal. Don’t let this most crucial fact slip under the radar at this is the heart of the issue.
Click to expand...
Oh my! The UN Security Council condemns something Israel did! How unusual.
 
Kadaveri said:
Israel has no business demanding any water bills from The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the first place as it isn’t even in Israel. The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem has not been recognised by any other country in the world and has been repeatedly condemned in the Security Council as illegal.
Click to expand...
If it were as simple as that, Israel also wouldn’t have any obligation to provide water to areas of East Jerusalem. However, I think Israel has an obligation whether as a sovereign power or as an occupying power to provide basic needs. And the utility which manages the water supply, whether it is independent, part of the municipal government, part of the national government, or whatever, has the right to be compensated for the service it provides.
 
Actually as per the Fourth Geneva Convention an occupying power is responsible for ensuring the basic needs of the population in the occupied territory, but no right exists that they be compensated for this; that would mean people living under military occupation have an obligation to pay the occupier’s bills. There’s a basic principle of international law that you can’t get a right from a wrong, if the Israelis don’t like the costs of illegally occupying territories which don’t belong to them then they should leave.
 
Kadaveri said:
Actually as per the Fourth Geneva Convention an occupying power is responsible for ensuring the basic needs of the population in the occupied territory, but no right exists that they be compensated for this; that would mean people living under military occupation have an obligation to pay the occupier’s bills. There’s a basic principle of international law that you can’t get a right from a wrong, if the Israelis don’t like the costs of illegally occupying territories which don’t belong to them then they should leave.
Click to expand...
I think the article you allude to is this one:
Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics…
Click to expand...
In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.
Click to expand...
I am open to correction on my interpretation, but it does not seem to me that the Convention intends to impose on the occupying power the obligation to dispense, in every case, all goods and services for free.

In a devastated area, the occupier may have to make a considerable expenditure to meet its obligations. And due to the scarcity of needs the occupier is providing, they will probably be rationed. Since money will likely also be scarce, it would be unreasonable in most such cases to require payment, at least for the minimal rationed amount.

This situation is a bit different. We have an economy that is functioning somewhat normally, and with existing local water authorities. Although there is some scarcity of the resource in question, it had been distributed efficiently (one assumes) prior to the occupation by the water authority. How does the authority keep Joe Greengrass from watering his entire property all day long, to the detriment of the rest of the community? Probably by the rate structure. Without the rate structure, it’s hard to see how water use can be regulated most efficiently, and waste minimized. Failure to regulate water use efficiently makes it difficult for an occupier to fulfill its obligation to ensure and maintain the services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, to the fullest extent of the means available to it.

If the head of a water utility now reports to a military governor rather than to a deposed indigenous government, does that mean the utility has lost the right to charge for its services?
 
Digitonomy said:
I think the article you allude to is this one:I am open to correction on my interpretation, but it does not seem to me that the Convention intends to impose on the occupying power the obligation to dispense, in every case, all goods and services for free.

In a devastated area, the occupier may have to make a considerable expenditure to meet its obligations. And due to the scarcity of needs the occupier is providing, they will probably be rationed. Since money will likely also be scarce, it would be unreasonable in most such cases to require payment, at least for the minimal rationed amount.

This situation is a bit different. We have an economy that is functioning somewhat normally, and with existing local water authorities. Although there is some scarcity of the resource in question, it had been distributed efficiently (one assumes) prior to the occupation by the water authority. How does the authority keep Joe Greengrass from watering his entire property all day long, to the detriment of the rest of the community? Probably by the rate structure. Without the rate structure, it’s hard to see how water use can be regulated most efficiently, and waste minimized. Failure to regulate water use efficiently makes it difficult for an occupier to fulfill its obligation to ensure and maintain the services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, to the fullest extent of the means available to it.

If the head of a water utility now reports to a military governor rather than to a deposed indigenous government, does that mean the utility has lost the right to charge for its services?
Click to expand...
This is also assuming that Kadaveri is correct in his assessment of the situation and that Israel is actually an occupying power in control of Jerusalem. If he isn’t then this his statement is just mere rhetoric and the issue over the water descends back to that of the municipal authorities and one akin to your Joe Greengrass watering his lawn 24 hrs. a day.

ChadS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top