Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law

[abi]

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Please understand the concepts of "no legal validity" and "a flagrant violation under international law" before responding as I have witnessed the zionists here attempting to argue this point.

I am not sure this particular issue could be any more clear.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Shrug.

Shit happens.

 

[Shusha]

Interesting that it is only a "flagrant violation of international law" when Israel does it. In all other cases, it is not. Makes you think, doesn't it?


Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.

Source: Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories

 

[The Irish Ram]

Squatting does not make you the owner of anything. They plopped themselves down on another's soil and tried to make it their own. It is not. It is Israel. And just like the property I own, they can build whatever on it, whenever they want.
If I want to build a barn on my land, and you set up a tent where my barn is going, you and the tent would be bulldozed right off of my property. Same thing in Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Shrug.

Shit happens.

Israel is a law free zone. It is the wild west of the middle east.

 

[rylah]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Shrug.

Shit happens.

Israel is a law free zone. It is the wild west of the middle east.

"Israel is a law free zone" - where PM's and presidents actually do get judged and jailed.

Arabs on the other hand can't have an election without throwing people off buildings.

 

[abi]

Can someone explain, if they have "no legal validity" and are "a flagrant violation under international law," why we can't simply get rid of them? I mean, would this not be a great first step towards a solution?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Can someone explain, if they have "no legal validity" and are "a flagrant violation under international law," why we can't simply get rid of them? I mean, would this not be a great first step towards a solution?

Great question. Why isn't anyone in jail?

 

[USAF 2023]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

It’s “ illegal” to annex occupied territory if the aggressor looses but if they win it’s not. Typical Pro Palestinian prospective

 

[USAF 2023]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Shrug.

Shit happens.

Israel is a law free zone. It is the wild west of the middle east.

Unlike the Arabs? Now, THAT is funny!

 

[P F Tinmore]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

It’s “ illegal” to annex occupied territory if the aggressor looses but if they win it’s not. Typical Pro Palestinian prospective

Israel has always been the aggressor. Unless you think the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists.

 

[Hollie]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

It’s “ illegal” to annex occupied territory if the aggressor looses but if they win it’s not. Typical Pro Palestinian prospective

Israel has always been the aggressor. Unless you think the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists.

Actually, it was the Turk invaders / colonists and the Arab-Moslem invaders from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., who went to the geographic area of Pal'istan as a part of the Islamist colonial project.

The era of islamic conquerers invading and imposing the dhimmi status on the minority population, forced conversions, etc., is over.

 

[Shusha]

Can someone explain, if they have "no legal validity" and are "a flagrant violation under international law," why we can't simply get rid of them? I mean, would this not be a great first step towards a solution?

There are a number of reasons:

1. It has not actually been proven and tested to be a violation of international law. In fact, if one looks at customary/case law, the opposite is true. Its not only acceptable, its quite common.

2. The forcible removal of large numbers of people from a territory based on their ethnicity is generally frowned upon nowadays (ethnic cleansing) and has been illegal for quite some time.

3. The idea that Arab Palestine must be Judenrein is abhorrent. And the forced removal of all Arabs from Israel is not concurrently demanded, probably because it is viewed as abhorrent. Double standard, much?

4. There is no way to legal way to determine from where Jews are to be removed -- since there is NO BORDER between Israel and a non-existent State of Arab Palestine. Such a border can only be determined by treaty between the two parties involved, according to every legal document drafted to date.

5. Since Arab Palestinians believe that the entire territory is "Palestinian land" it will not solve the conflict to remove Jews from only part of that land. Arabs will insist that the remainder of Arab Palestine is still occupied and must be cleansed of Jews. Witness Gaza.

6. The international community, through the actions and legal documents of the UN, has determined that the best way to solve conflicts is through peaceful means. Negotiations and agreements and treaties -- not forced application of "solutions" based on popular opinion. It is a bad idea for the international community to start imposing "solutions" on nations. This is particularly true in the face of the virulent anti-semitism demonstrated by UN bodies over time.

 

[Shusha]

Here is another confirmation on the legal right of the Jewish people to settle in Judea and Samaria.


Stahl-Don then mentioned some facts that are accepted as part of international law, and yet ignored when it comes to Israel.

– General Assembly Resolutions are not legally binding and are actually only policy recommendations.

– UN resolutions are only binding if both parties agree; the Arabs immediately rejected Resolution 181 in both word and deed, waging war in 1948 to annihilate Israel.

– The party that rejects an agreement does not retain any rights based on that agreement.

The Palestinian insistence that the resolution remains valid, with the option of a state being held open for them forever, is simply not true.

“The British Mandate is therefore the only legally binding document regarding Palestine,” Stahl-Don concluded, “and its Article 6 explicitly states that the Mandate should encourage the settlement of Jews in Palestine – which included Judea and Samaria.”

 

[abi]

I am at a loss. How can "no legal validity" and are "a flagrant violation under international law," be misinterpreted?

 

[BulletProof]

They should have annexed the territory in 1967.

They would have, except Jews would not longer be the majority in Israel. Israel would cease to be a jewish state or Israel would have to end the pretense of being a democracy.

 

[BulletProof]

It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Jews care only about Jews. They don't care about human rights or laws of gentiles.

 

[fncceo]

They don't care about human rights or laws of gentiles

Depends on the gentile...