Jump to content
IGNORED

Kerry says settlements endanger peace


missmuffet

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

WOW!! a lot of end time happenings

Kerry is a total incompetent and should really be ignored. He has never accomplished anything worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

The "settlements" as they call them, are not an obstacle to peace.   Israel was subjected 19 years of terrorism and had to fight 3 wars for their own survival before there were any Jews in either the West Bank or Jordan.

Israel took the West Bank in a defensive war with Jordan and by international law, that land belongs to Israel and that includes 100% of Jerusalem.   The Arabs, including the "Palestinians"   do have one single right to one square inch of Israel, the West Bank or Gaza.  All of that is legally 100% Israeli property.

Even Israel bowed to every demand the "Palestinians"  made, there would not be peace.  The goal is not to create a Palestinian state; the goal is to destroy Israel. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The "settlements" as they call them, are not an obstacle to peace.   Israel was subjected 19 years of terrorism and had to fight 3 wars for their own survival before there were any Jews in either the West Bank or Jordan.

Israel took the West Bank in a defensive war with Jordan and by international law, that land belongs to Israel and that includes 100% of Jerusalem.   The Arabs, including the "Palestinians"   do have one single right to one square inch of Israel, the West Bank or Gaza.  All of that is legally 100% Israeli property.

Even Israel bowed to every demand the "Palestinians"  made, there would not be peace.  The goal is not to create a Palestinian state; the goal is to destroy Israel. 

 

True. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

Everyone blames Israel for building their nation, never the Palestinians for refusing to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  31
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   19
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/25/2016
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Israel took the West Bank in a defensive war with Jordan and by international law, that land belongs to Israel and that includes 100% of Jerusalem.   The Arabs, including the "Palestinians"   do have one single right to one square inch of Israel, the West Bank or Gaza.  All of that is legally 100% Israeli property.

International law doesn't award land to the victors, even if the victor claims to have acted in defense.    In fact, your argument that the land belongs to Israel because it was won war specifically undermines Israel's legal claim to the land.  Implicitly, you agree with the recent UN resolution, except the logical conclusion, that was passed against Israel 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
6 minutes ago, Jacobson said:

International law doesn't award land to the victors, even if the victor claims to have acted in defense.    In fact, your argument that the land belongs to Israel because it was won war specifically undermines Israel's legal claim to the land.  Implicitly, you agree with the recent UN resolution, except the logical conclusion, that was passed against Israel 

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.   According to international law any land taken in self defense, if the defending nation is victorious becomes their land.   If Canada started lobbing missiles into New York, the US would move into Canada and take our their launchers and take possession of the land used to stage that attack.   That land becomes the property of the United States for ever.

It is exactly the fact that Israel took the West Bank away from Jordan in a war that Jordan launched upon Israel that stands as the primary legal claim Israel has on the West Bank.   It was also the legal claim Israel had over Gaza until the Disengagement in 2005.

Sorry, but the facts are on my side and there is no way I agree with the UN resolution in any way shape or form.  I am 100% pro-Israel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  253
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   149
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/10/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/11/1963

7 hours ago, Jacobson said:

International law doesn't award land to the victors, even if the victor claims to have acted in defense.    In fact, your argument that the land belongs to Israel because it was won war specifically undermines Israel's legal claim to the land.  Implicitly, you agree with the recent UN resolution, except the logical conclusion, that was passed against Israel 

28 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Could you kindly give us a reference/link? Thank you.

According to some uncustomarly detailed references from Wikipedia:

"The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law."  (Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law.)

"the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars." (“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". (In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pertile, Marco 2005)

"The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation." (Barak-Erez, Daphne 2006. "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.)

That's a short list with quotations, for more see the references for: International law and Israeli settlements, Wikipedia.

Look, I don't agree with the legal reasoning or the international consensus but it's real. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited by thilipsis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, thilipsis said:

According to some uncustomarly detailed references from Wikipedia:

"The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law."  (Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law.)

"the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars." (“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". (In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pertile, Marco 2005)

"The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation." (Barak-Erez, Daphne 2006. "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.)

That's a short list with quotations, for more see the references for: International law and Israeli settlements, Wikipedia.

Look, I don't agree with the legal reasoning or the international consensus but it's real. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

The international community is actually wrong about this.  The international community (UN, EU Quartet, liberal media establishment) are ignoring international law and simply appealing to what the international community views as legal or illegal does not constitute an appeal to international law, itself.

First of all,  Israel is not an occupier and there are no occupied territories.   The Wikipedia article runs from the assumption that the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights are occupied territories and that is an incorrect assumption, which really poisons the well when it comes to these discussions.

Israel's Ambassador to Canada and international law expert, Alan Baker, explains here why Israel is not an occupier>>> http://jcpa.org/video/international-law-expert-israel-not-occupier/

As for international law and Israel's presence in the West Bank and environs, this is covered quite well by Robbie Sabel. Robbie Sabel is professor of international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and former legal adviser to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He wrote an article for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that demonstrates the international community's blatant hypocrisy (as shown in the Wikipedia article) when it comes to their application of international law.  The article reads in part:

  • Israel’s record of compliance with international law is remarkably strong. In a long series of decisions, the Israeli High Court has ordered the Israeli government, army, and security services to change policies that, in the court’s view, were in violation of customary international law. The court has even intervened in actual combat situations.
  • Perhaps because Israel’s detractors are aware of this reality, they have undertaken a process of manipulating international law in a way that invents rules that are applied only to Israel and not to other states or in other situations.
  • Israel’s detractors invented a new international legal concept called “illegal occupation.” In an armed conflict, international law clearly permits military occupation. The UN Security Council has never declared Israeli occupation to be illegal. U.S. occupation of Iraq after the Second Gulf War was universally considered a legal act.
  • It is often presented manipulatively as a legal axiom that the Green Line already has the status of a legally binding border. By signing a peace agreement, Israel and Jordan have now mutually acknowledged the termination of the Armistice Agreement and its demarcation line. The validity of an armistice line expires with the expiration of the armistice. Therefore, formally, there is no longer any legal validity to the Green Line.
  • By any accepted legal standard, Gaza is not under Israeli occupation. International law requires that, for an area to be considered as under occupation, the territory must be “actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” Again, there appears to be a unique definition of “occupation” applicable only to Israel.
  • The essence of any legal system is that law applies equally to all. Devising tailor-made rules of international law for application only where Israel is concerned undermines international law and can have an insidious and corrosive effect on the rule of law in general.

For the entire article see:  http://jcpa.org/article/manipulating-international-law-as-part-of-anti-israeli-lawfare/

The international community is nothing if not hypocritical on this issue.   Morocco, Turkey, and India are genuine occupying forces in the West Sahara, Cyprus and the Kashmir, respectively and they are not condemned by the EU UN or anyone, for that matter.    Yet Israel is NOT an occupier under international law, but is being singled out by the international community for alleged actions that do not warrant even the smallest criticism when committed by other nations.

I would not appeal to Wikipedia, it is a flawed source and reflects the hypocrisy of the international community at  large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...