Does international law require Israel to vacate the disputed territories

[Boston1]

My contention is that there is no element of international law that applies to the palestinians either having a "legal right" to the disputed territories. I would further contend that any reference to land acquired by force of arms is in specific reference to acts of aggression. Since all of the Arabs wars against Israel have been acts of aggression its the Arabs who are in fact occupying land they aquired through force of arms. VS Israel who is maintaining a defensive barrier in the exact place specified in the last agreed upon treaty.

Ergo Israel is not occupying land illegally.

I'd invite anyone who'd like to list international statutes which specifically state otherwise.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I wouldn't care if there were. Israel should annex all lands taken in 1967 and be done with it.

 

[montelatici]

My contention is that there is no element of international law that applies to the palestinians either having a "legal right" to the disputed territories. I would further contend that any reference to land acquired by force of arms is in specific reference to acts of aggression. Since all of the Arabs wars against Israel have been acts of aggression its the Arabs who are in fact occupying land they aquired through force of arms. VS Israel who is maintaining a defensive barrier in the exact place specified in the last agreed upon treaty.

Ergo Israel is not occupying land illegally.

I'd invite anyone who'd like to list international statutes which specifically state otherwise.

As has been explained many times. It is a logical impossibility for the native people of Palestine to have been the aggressors vis-a-vis Europeans invading from another continent, intent on implementing a colonial project that included the eviction and/or elimination of said native people.

 

[mdavisyoung]

The whole land transfer was built on a lie, so you could never come up with anything to dispute it, cause how do you undue a lie that built a country the world recognizes... you can sit back and watch them continue to lie consistently all while you watch them expand their borders.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Boston1]

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

;--)

 

[montelatici]

The whole land transfer was built on a lie, so you could never come up with anything to dispute it, cause how do you undue a lie that built a country the world recognizes... you can sit back and watch them continue to lie consistently all while you watch them expand their borders.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. But, I think it is useful that the facts be presented and highlighted to prevent the Zionist propaganda, that most of us grew up with, from overwhelming the truth of what happened.

 

[Boston1]

The whole land transfer was built on a lie, so you could never come up with anything to dispute it, cause how do you undue a lie that built a country the world recognizes... you can sit back and watch them continue to lie consistently all while you watch them expand their borders.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. But, I think it is useful that the facts be presented and highlighted to prevent the Zionist propaganda, that most of us grew up with, from overwhelming the truth of what happened.

Well, here's your opportunity. List the international laws you believe support your position.

I say none of them actually do, so have at it ;--)

Oh and you might skip the UN nonbonding resolutions or the mandate orders that have expired ;--)

 

[mdavisyoung]

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

;--)

Even if you could, people would have to care to even learn from it.....not that i dont, its just that i dont expect any information like that to raise eye brows

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[mdavisyoung]

The whole land transfer was built on a lie, so you could never come up with anything to dispute it, cause how do you undue a lie that built a country the world recognizes... you can sit back and watch them continue to lie consistently all while you watch them expand their borders.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. But, I think it is useful that the facts be presented and highlighted to prevent the Zionist propaganda, that most of us grew up with, from overwhelming the truth of what happened.

Keep searching though, you might find something interesting.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[montelatici]

The whole land transfer was built on a lie, so you could never come up with anything to dispute it, cause how do you undue a lie that built a country the world recognizes... you can sit back and watch them continue to lie consistently all while you watch them expand their borders.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. But, I think it is useful that the facts be presented and highlighted to prevent the Zionist propaganda, that most of us grew up with, from overwhelming the truth of what happened.

Well, here's your opportunity. List the international laws you believe support your position.

I say none of them actually do, so have at it ;--)

Oh and you might skip the UN nonbonding resolutions or the mandate orders that have expired ;--)

I'll make it easier. Name one international law, GA resoluiton, declaration, legal opinion from the 20th century on that justifies the colonization of native people and their eviction by people living on another continent.

 

[Boston1]

LOL, nice bait and switch.

So how about it

Can you establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim.

I say you can't and all your distractions do nothing but support my assertion

 

[montelatici]

LOL, nice bait and switch.

So how about it

Can you establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim.

I say you can't and all your distractions do nothing but support my assertion

"THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ),

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

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”;........."

International Court of Justice

 

[Lipush]

I wouldn't care if there were. Israel should annex all lands taken in 1967 and be done with it.

Mhmmm.

 

[mdavisyoung]

LOL, nice bait and switch.

So how about it

Can you establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim.

I say you can't and all your distractions do nothing but support my assertion

"THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ),

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

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”;........."

International Court of Justice

I like how they only talked about the wall and not the land they were already occupying, see how every document concerning Israel and the countries around it are built on lies.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Boston1]

LOL, nice bait and switch.

So how about it

Can you establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim.

I say you can't and all your distractions do nothing but support my assertion

"THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ),

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

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”;........."

International Court of Justice

Wrong again

from your own link

Quote
Press Release 2004/28

9 July 2004

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

ADVISORY OPINION
End Quote

see
Advisory Jurisdiction | International Court of Justice

Quote

Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases where it is stipulated beforehand that they shall have binding effect (for example, as in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, and the Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America), the Court's advisory opinions have no binding effect. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to decide, by any means open to it, what effect to give to these opinions.

End Quote

once again you are unable to provide a single statute within international law which requires israel abandon territory lost by the Arabs.

Oh and MR Davis, yes, he's unable to actually address the issue so he does a lot of dancing around. In the end I've studied this one for years and there simply isn't any legal statute within international law that specifically applies in this particular case.

You might enjoy this link
Settlements Are Not Illegal - Think-Israel

 

[montelatici]

LOL, nice bait and switch.

So how about it

Can you establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim.

I say you can't and all your distractions do nothing but support my assertion

"THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ),

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

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”;........."

International Court of Justice

Wrong again

from your own link

Quote
Press Release 2004/28

9 July 2004

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

ADVISORY OPINION
End Quote

see
Advisory Jurisdiction | International Court of Justice

Quote

Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases where it is stipulated beforehand that they shall have binding effect (for example, as in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, and the Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America), the Court's advisory opinions have no binding effect. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to decide, by any means open to it, what effect to give to these opinions.

End Quote

once again you are unable to provide a single statute within international law which requires israel abandon territory lost by the Arabs.

Oh and MR Davis, yes, he's unable to actually address the issue so he does a lot of dancing around. In the end I've studied this one for years and there simply isn't any legal statute within international law that specifically applies in this particular case.

You might enjoy this link
Settlements Are Not Illegal - Think-Israel

The case was about the wall. The fact that it is Occupied territory is clear in the opinion, the wall is being built on Occupied territory as stated.

By the way, using a propaganda piece as a counterweight to a decision of the International Court of Justice, is the epitome of silliness.

 

[Boston1]

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law

 

[montelatici]

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law

The facts are in the decision of the ICJ. If the territories were not legally occupied under international law, the issue of the wall would not have been taken up by the ICJ. That's how international law works. The Occupation is settled international law.

 

[Boston1]

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law

The facts are in the decision of the ICJ. If the territories were not legally occupied under international law, the issue of the wall would not have been taken up by the ICJ. That's how international law works. The Occupation is settled international law.

LOL

Then you shouldn't have any trouble locating those laws and presenting them to the group ;--)

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law

 

[montelatici]

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law

The facts are in the decision of the ICJ. If the territories were not legally occupied under international law, the issue of the wall would not have been taken up by the ICJ. That's how international law works. The Occupation is settled international law.

LOL

Then you shouldn't have any trouble locating those laws and presenting them to the group ;--)

If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.

Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law

I use the decisions of the ICJ, they are the international lawyers. Your ridiculous denial of settled law changes nothing.