The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And your comment here is one of the reasons that we need to protect Israel.

That is one of the thing that makes Oslo an illegal agreement.

(COMMENT)

This is a case of changing the law after the fact.

International Community cannot praise the participant, pass-out Nobel Peace Prizes, and slap each other on the back and say what a good thing was done; Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin 1994. THEN turn-around and say the the Oslo Accord were illegal just because you don't like the outcome. To do this is an example where the minority group (Israel) is being subject to the pressures of a The Tyranny of the Majority (the International Community).

In these times, with UN Security Council Resolutions like SC/RES/2334 --- the mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pfffft.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

Never ratified so does not stand, why do you ignore the truth when it is used to show you are grasping at straws. And it is not even part of the link you gave, which is nothing more than a school lesson so hardly valid

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, yes --- among the possibilities is something on this order.

Or perhaps they were not a party to the conflict. The armistice lines restricted the movement of armies. They divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

Being a participant or a contributor to a conflict is not always the same as being a Party to the Conflict. There were a number of Arab League participants that provided resources against Israel.

The Arab Palestinians contributed what resource were available to include the:

Irregulars:

• Holy War Army
• Arab Liberation Army

Your explanation is --- OHH --- so close. Armistice Lines are established to freeze forward motion into the battle space. It does not freeze realignment, replenishments, and replacement activity. Nor is the movement of pre-position stocks up to the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area). From a military standpoint, it is a timeout. But from a political perspective - all the parties to the conflict cease the use of force to violate the armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement.

"The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose."
SOURCE: Article Written by:
The Late Eugene W. Rostow was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.
He played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice agreements did not end Israel's war against the Palestinians.

The British passed the Mandate to the UNPC who were a no show.

The UNCCP was supposed to resolve important issues but they flopped too.

I guess that is why there is BDS. Everyone else has their thumb up their ass.

WRONG The British handedthe mandate to the UN who then created the UNPC which was hampered by the arab muslim denial of everything. So the fault lies with the arab muslims and not the UNPC, which has been the case since 1917 when they realised that the Jews would be getting 1% of the M.E. as their National home

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just because you see the issue through anti-Israeli lenses; does not mean that everyone else sees it with the issue through same fog and frosted color.

Not true. Only if the rights of the people are abrogated.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords DID NOT touch any individual rights of the people. It is an Agreement Set between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People).

The intent of agreements, such as this, is to promote security and sustainable development. This would, if the conflict subsides, a state for enhanced commercial growth.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo allows a lot of rights abuses. That can't be legal.

Development? There is no development.

Which rights are abused that were extant at that time, and they had to be valid rights that had passed down into international law.

The only reason is because the arab muslims dont want to develop and grow an economy, they prefer to live of charity and handouts.

 

[Phoenall]

The resolution demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,” but it imposes no specific consequences if Israel fails to do so. In that sense it is as toothless as all its predecessors.

But without the fig leaf of a peace process to hide behind, Israel clearly fears that patience is running out and that this resolution will boost Palestinian-led efforts to hold Israel accountable – particularly the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, told CNN that the resolution “encourages boycotts and sanctions against Israel.”

But Israel, already in a weak position internationally, seems determined to antagonize the world as much as possible.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who also holds the foreign ministry portfolio, has ordered that “working ties” be limited with 12 of the 14 countries on the Security Council that backed the resolution – the two others, Malaysia and Venezuela, have no diplomatic ties with Israel.

This means, in effect, that Israel is imposing diplomatic sanctions on the likes of China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France.

AND ! ! ! ! ! what does that mean for you muslims in the long run

 

[Phoenall]

BUT, there was an unusual set of items (not that anyone is going to pay attention to it) included:

• Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

• Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

Implementing this violates international and domestic law.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

From an American perspective, the Security Council Resolution 2334 is intended to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. But in point of fact, the PLO and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said that the two-state solution is not longer viable.

Indeed, this resolution is kicking a dead horse and a two state solution is not a requirement in international law.

WRONG see my previous posts that link to the LoN treaty's and mandate meetings that say it is.

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, the "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force," is generally considered true.

Indeed, and all of Israel was acquired by military force.

Lost because the arab muslims could not work together, all the Jews did was defend against invasion and attack

 

[Kondor3]

Oh, dearie-me, are these little Palestinian pissants and their Muslim-ass-kissing butt buddies still pretending like they're going to convince anyone other than their own scruffy, natty club members? Shortly after January 20, 2017, the United States moves its embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. And that's just for openers. UNSCR 2234 is a joke.

 

[montelatici]

Oh dear, the murderous little Zionist punks and their Jew-ass-kissing round pound buddies are upset that the world has confirmed that Israel is a pariah state that has been breaking international law.

 

[Hollie]

Oh dear, the murderous little Zionist punks and their Jew-ass-kissing round pound buddies are upset that the world has confirmed that Israel is a pariah state that has been breaking international law.

Oh, my. You're getting that unseemly drool on your keyboard again. Where has the world confirmed that Israel is a pariah state?

Really, dear. Your affliction of IJH has developed in a full-fledged case of HIR.

 

[P F Tinmore]

From an American perspective, the Security Council Resolution 2334 is intended to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. But in point of fact, the PLO and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said that the two-state solution is not longer viable.

Indeed, this resolution is kicking a dead horse and a two state solution is not a requirement in international law.

WRONG see my previous posts that link to the LoN treaty's and mandate meetings that say it is.

Link with passage?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, the "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force," is generally considered true.

Indeed, and all of Israel was acquired by military force.

Lost because the arab muslims could not work together, all the Jews did was defend against invasion and attack

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel and show where these so called attacks occurred?

 

[montelatici]

The conflict took place almost exclusively in the Arab and International sectors of Palestine with the Jews entering the Arab and International sector seeking to conquer more territory and expel non-Jews. The Jews had been invading the Arab sector months before the partition plan was voted on and before Israel declared independence.

Besides the many villages and towns the Jews had attacked and conquered in the Arab sector before the partition came into effect, the Jews laid siege to the Arab city of Jaffa (an enclave, part of the the Arab sector) a month before the declaration of independence (or the Arab League intervention) and the city was forced to surrender days before Israel declared independence, to the Irgun and Haganah.

So, it is clear the European Jews were the aggressors. This is confirmed by recently declassified British intelligence reports of the time. Obviously the early aggressive and violent attacks by the Jews resulted in success. They were able to defeat and expel most of the native Muslims and Christians because the Muslims and Christians were too restrained.

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision...........................By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero.................................. they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

The Arab League, though they attempted to stop the Jewish massacre and dispossession of the Muslims and Christians, as described as the last hope by the British, were unsuccessful against the violent and mobilized European Jew aggressor.

 

[Phoenall]

From an American perspective, the Security Council Resolution 2334 is intended to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. But in point of fact, the PLO and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said that the two-state solution is not longer viable.

Indeed, this resolution is kicking a dead horse and a two state solution is not a requirement in international law.

WRONG see my previous posts that link to the LoN treaty's and mandate meetings that say it is.

Link with passage?

Given previously, if you cant be bothered to read them then stop asking for them all the time

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, the "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force," is generally considered true.

Indeed, and all of Israel was acquired by military force.

Lost because the arab muslims could not work together, all the Jews did was defend against invasion and attack

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel and show where these so called attacks occurred?

Do you have a 1948 map of the state of palestine to show the same thing ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, the "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force," is generally considered true.

Indeed, and all of Israel was acquired by military force.

Lost because the arab muslims could not work together, all the Jews did was defend against invasion and attack

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel and show where these so called attacks occurred?

Do you have a 1948 map of the state of palestine to show the same thing ?

The same what thing?

 

[Dot Com]

Israel builds a wall separating Palestinians from each other, imprisons their leaders using sham charges, they patrol the streets with armed soldiers, yeah right any people could establish self-government under those conditions. Unbelievable.

^ that

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, the "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force," is generally considered true.

Indeed, and all of Israel was acquired by military force.

Lost because the arab muslims could not work together, all the Jews did was defend against invasion and attack

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel and show where these so called attacks occurred?

Do you have a 1948 map of the state of palestine to show the same thing ?

The same what thing?

To show where Israel attacked arab muslim villages and the international borders of the nation of palestine

 

[Shusha]

The conflict took place almost exclusively in the Arab and International sectors of Palestine with the Jews entering the Arab and International sector seeking to conquer more territory and expel non-Jews. The Jews had been invading the Arab sector months before the partition plan was voted on and before Israel declared independence.

Besides the many villages and towns the Jews had attacked and conquered in the Arab sector before the partition came into effect, the Jews laid siege to the Arab city of Jaffa (an enclave, part of the the Arab sector) a month before the declaration of independence (or the Arab League intervention) and the city was forced to surrender days before Israel declared independence, to the Irgun and Haganah.

So, it is clear the European Jews were the aggressors. This is confirmed by recently declassified British intelligence reports of the time. Obviously the early aggressive and violent attacks by the Jews resulted in success. They were able to defeat and expel most of the native Muslims and Christians because the Muslims and Christians were too restrained.

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision...........................By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero.................................. they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

The Arab League, though they attempted to stop the Jewish massacre and dispossession of the Muslims and Christians, as described as the last hope by the British, were unsuccessful against the violent and mobilized European Jew aggressor.

Oh give me a break. You make it sound like Israel up and decided to kick out some Arabs and make a land grab for no reason. You frame the narrative as though Israel was acting in a vacuum with no cause and that nothing else was happening right up until 14 May 1948. You frame the narrative as though Israel's intent was never military in nature and that none of the Arab nations surrounding Israel promised to wipe Israel off the map and Jews into the sea as soon as possible.

Its nothing but demonizing Israel. Tell the truth:

There were Arab non-Palestinian foreign irregular forces present and fighting in Israel long before 14 May 1948.

The Arab Salvation Army was present and fighting in Israel long before 14 May 1948.

There was intense fighting in Jaffa, in Jerusalem, along the roads and in many, many other places months before 14 May 1948.

 

[montelatici]

I just presented the facts as to where the fighting took place, within the Arab and International sectors. What reason there was for the capture of land within the Arab sector, including the siege and subsequent conquest of a large Arab city (Jaffa) started long before the partition plan was approved, can be a matter of contention. The fact is, it happened.

The only neutral information that can be found is that of British intelligence reports back to London which state clearly that the Jews were attacking and the Arabs continued to hope for a peaceful settlement.

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition..............
There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes.............they (Arabs) are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states.".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948