US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements

[Coyote]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ Mindful, et al,

Every single point in the Alan Baker Magazine Article (Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law ) has been discussed at some length in this forum, at one time or another. There is nothing new in the Baker Article at all. The Article could even be aptly described as a Summation of Selected Excerpts of this forum. It is merely truncated to a very condensed version.

The issue of Israel’s rights in the West Bank under international law, as simple as it sounds, conceals a complex and extensive web of historic, legal, military and political issues that, for many years, have engaged and continue to engage the parties to the conflict, as well as the international community as a whole.

This article will briefly analyze the three major elements defining Israel’s rights in the West Bank.

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

(COMMENT)

The actual problem with many of these discussions, rests in that, the discussion tables → talk about the theoretical, the political and twin aspects of humanitarian/human rights and try to encapsulate it to fit in one of the many twisted legal options and opinions that swirl area the "Question of Palestine" since the establishment of the Jewish National Home (a descriptive phrase for) known as the State of Israel (a recommended entity by name as the Jewish State).

All sorts of justifications have been levied, some in favor of the Arab Palestinians and some in favor of the Israels. But very few just look at the reality. Whether you agree or not → Israel has had realistic control over the situation and the accompanying territory for a half a century; with an indifferent to any enforcement of any international consensus for all that time.

And, from a practical standpoint, concerning the territorial lands known as the West Bank, and selected portions of Jerusalem, there is a Treaty in place between Jordan (the nation in control from 1949 to 1967) and Israel (the nation in control since the end of the Six-Day War). And whether or not the outside observers choose to see it that way, that is the reality. You cannot operate in any of that territory for very long without coming to that conclusion. Israel is in control and has been in control - undeniably - since the end of the Six-Day War.

(EPILOG)

You can throw every other argument, declarations, justification, promises, covens, charters, conventions, treaties, and laws, out into the trash and set it all ablaze. I have just described the reality everyone will face when they get up in the morning. And no matter how you look at it, there will be a conflict between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians until they decide in agreement and together to change that reality through some mutual understanding.


Most Respectfully,
R

While I don't disagree with the practicality of looking at the conflict in this light, it carries with it the distasteful idea that "might makes right" and undermines Israel's moral and legal right to their homeland.

It may be distasteful but is also somewhat accurate. The Arabs picked a war an lost. There is no moral or legal right to the entire region of Palestine.

And just as realistically, most conflicts end up resolved by whomever holds the power and what sort of concessions, if any, they are willing to make, rather than who is right and who is wrong or any sort of moral compass...at least that how I have seen it.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Did you want to address the elephant in the room as how to tell exactly where the place where Jews are permitted to live ends and the place where Jews are not permitted to live begins.

Sure.

Jews who are Israeli nationals should be able to live anywhere Israel holds national soveriegnty.

Yes, but here's the trick. Where does Israel hold national sovereignty? And who gets to decide that?

How about the other ignored elephant?

Where are non Jews permitted to live?

There is no place under Israeli sovereignty or Israeli legal control which prohibits people of any ethnic, religious or national background from living there. Nor is there any international uproar about Arab settlements being illegal, or being an obstacle to peace. Nor is there any international uproar about absolute Arab exclusivity and control in certain *highly volatile and contested* areas. Why is that, do you think?

I agree, where do they hold soveriegnty? It isn't a trick it is a mess.

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

 

[rylah]

So I will play Devil's advocate here. I saw a video on YouTube, where a Jewish resident of Hebron was interviewed. When he was asked if he would oppose Hebron being made a part of Palestine, he said, "Sure, I would oppose it. I didn't leave the U.S. and come to Israel so that I could become a citizen of Palestine." That's what is going on here.

Please do play devil's advocate. Its far more interesting than Tinmore's one-liners.

Sure. Every Jew living in what is negotiated to become Palestine, and every Arab living in what is negotiated to be confirmed as Israel will have to make a decision as to whether they maintain their residency or move. (In my opinion, Israel absolutely must hold the Jewish community of Hebron and the holy places there.) That seems entirely reasonable to me.

The idea that every place where Jews live in Area C will become part of Israel in a final agreement is not reasonable.

The idea that at this stage Jewish presence and sovereignty between Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea has to be a function of further agreement is a false assumption.

All the legal basis is there, but seems a mater of public opinion which has been bombarded with decades of of Oslo education trying to condition a generation there's no other way..

MK Smotrich to PM Netanyahu : "Bring the Edmund Levy Report to Govt. Approval

 

[Shusha]

I agree, where do they hold soveriegnty? It isn't a trick it is a mess.

Its neither. Its a matter of law.

So the question, again: What is the extent of Israeli sovereignty, in legal terms?

 

[Shusha]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

 

[Shusha]

The idea that at this stage Jewish presence and sovereignty between Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea has to be a function of further agreement is a false assumption.

All the legal basis is there, ...

You are preaching to the choir, as it were. The reality is that Israel must agree to and concede any removal of Israeli sovereignty over the territory. And secondarily, the assumption must be that Israel will do that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

 

[Shusha]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Yep. A perfect example of how the PA and international communities illegally build in areas outside their jurisdiction in contravention of treaties and the principle of non-intervention.

No information AT ALL about prohibitions of non-Jews on building.

Try again.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

The concept of "Might Makes Right" (MMR) is the moderate view on the spectrum of the "use of force" (deadly force being the "might" at the extreme). MMR is the effort applied as a matter of "Last Resort." It is the dominant theory in braking the stalemate or responding to a political situation which is beyond any other resolution. It was the means by which the following were resolved (just to name a few):

• Unification of Saudi Arabia
• Turkish War of Independence
• World War I
  
• Balqa Revolt against the Transjordanian Independence
• WWII
• Gulf War I
• Gulf War II

While I don't disagree with the practicality of looking at the conflict in this light, it carries with it the distasteful idea that "might makes right" and undermines Israel's moral and legal right to their homeland.

(COMMENT)

Like all political decisions, the application of MMR can be applied for both positive reasons and negative reasons. Anytime that you have a "majority rule" situation you have an MMR component representing the majority in the society.

While many like to paint the MMR application as something evil or politically less than savory, the people of most regions of the world have invoke that measure. There is not a country between the English Channel and the Pacific Ocean that has not owed its political survival through the application of MMR.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

It was refreshing that an important policy statement has emerged from Washington, D.C., a city otherwise preoccupied with unending Congressional investigations. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on November 18, 2019 announced a significant change in U.S. policy towards the State of Israel by rejecting a long held State Department legal opinion. The U.S., he said, will no longer recognize per se that Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank are inconsistent with international law. Pompeo’s statement was a deliberate reversal of policies of previous U.S. administrations.

The story of the dispute in essence starts with the Mandate for Palestine granted on July 24, 1922 to Britain by the Council of the League of Nations, recalling the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and suggesting their reconstituting their National Home in that country. Article 6 of the Mandate states that it would facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.


The history of Middle East territories still need understanding>>>>>>

The United States and Israeli Settlements

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Yep. A perfect example of how the PA and international communities illegally build in areas outside their jurisdiction in contravention of treaties and the principle of non-intervention.

No information AT ALL about prohibitions of non-Jews on building.

Try again.

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

 

[Mindful]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Yep. A perfect example of how the PA and international communities illegally build in areas outside their jurisdiction in contravention of treaties and the principle of non-intervention.

No information AT ALL about prohibitions of non-Jews on building.

Try again.

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

You mean Jewish Palestine?

 

[Mindful]

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal.

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.


The West Bank city of Ariel.

In reversing the Obama administration’s shameful acceding to the UN Security Council’s 2016 resolution that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were illegal under international law, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally stated what was obvious to many legal scholars and others who have assessed the facts on the ground; namely, as Pompeo put it, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Additionally, as he noted, while the decision “does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world,” the secretary emphasized that the affirmation of the settlements’ legality “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.”

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

The concept of "Might Makes Right" (MMR) is the moderate view on the spectrum of the "use of force" (deadly force being the "might" at the extreme). MMR is the effort applied as a matter of "Last Resort." It is the dominant theory in braking the stalemate or responding to a political situation which is beyond any other resolution. It was the means by which the following were resolved (just to name a few):

• Unification of Saudi Arabia
• Turkish War of Independence
• World War I
  
• Balqa Revolt against the Transjordanian Independence
• WWII
• Gulf War I
• Gulf War II

While I don't disagree with the practicality of looking at the conflict in this light, it carries with it the distasteful idea that "might makes right" and undermines Israel's moral and legal right to their homeland.

(COMMENT)

Like all political decisions, the application of MMR can be applied for both positive reasons and negative reasons. Anytime that you have a "majority rule" situation you have an MMR component representing the majority in the society.

While many like to paint the MMR application as something evil or politically less than savory, the people of most regions of the world have invoke that measure. There is not a country between the English Channel and the Pacific Ocean that has not owed its political survival through the application of MMR.


Most Respectfully,
R

Right or wrong, you always side with the people with the guns.

 

[rylah]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Yep. A perfect example of how the PA and international communities illegally build in areas outside their jurisdiction in contravention of treaties and the principle of non-intervention.

No information AT ALL about prohibitions of non-Jews on building.

Try again.

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

Whatever is illegal according to the law of the sovereign.
Any legal authority on that matter comes solely from the legislative and judicial branches of the
Jewish Nation.

You don't see countries issue legal opinions on apartment construction in Morocco or Spain.
Neither can the US regarding Israel, because it's up to each country's govt. branches to decide.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo II, 1995)
• Interactive Database - In the Heading:

In Area A, which included the major Palestinian cities (with the exception of Hebron), Palestinians were to be given full civil and security control. In Area B, which included Palestinian rural settlements, Palestinians were given civil and security responsibilities, with Israel retaining an “overriding responsibility” for the security of Israelis and counter-terrorism efforts. Area C, which included Israeli settlements and most vacant territory, was to remain under full Israeli control. The agreement also established measures for a democratically-elected Palestinian Council.

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

The Israelis have full-Control over Area C. The Israelis decide what can be built where...


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal.

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.


The West Bank city of Ariel.

In reversing the Obama administration’s shameful acceding to the UN Security Council’s 2016 resolution that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were illegal under international law, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally stated what was obvious to many legal scholars and others who have assessed the facts on the ground; namely, as Pompeo put it, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Additionally, as he noted, while the decision “does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world,” the secretary emphasized that the affirmation of the settlements’ legality “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.”

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..

The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 242​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is it non Jews are not allowed to create new settlements in Area C? They suffer from the same housing shortage and crowding (worse maybe given the inequity in the permitting process).

I believe your assumptions are incorrect.

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Building permits are granted in roughly equal numbers to Jewish applicants (citizens) and Arab applicants (citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) applicants, as far as can be determined with dedicated research on the matter. Its not readily easy to discern because Israel does not, in fact, keep statistical records on the ethnicity of each applicant. (Because, you know, that would be discriminatory).

Building permits are very, very carefully scrutinized by Israel's Supreme Court to ensure no building occurs on privately-owned land, by both sides.

Israel, did, actually, voluntarily enforce a ten year building freeze on Israeli (Jewish settlements), as a concession toward peace negotiations. (For all the good that did.)

The PA, in contravention of signed treaties with Israel, provides funds for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

The international community, in contravention of the legal principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, provides building materials, funding and support for illegal building in Area C. (That is, in territory NOT under its jurisdiction.)

Israel provides funds, infrastructure and security for legal building in Area C. (That is, in territory which IS under its jurisdiction.)

Israel does not interfere with building or any other civil control in Areas A and B and Gaza. (That is, in territory which is NOT under its jurisdiction.)


The ONLY way for anyone to establish that Israel is acting illegally is to provide a legal argument for legal sovereignty or jurisdiction of SOMEONE ELSE over Area C. And the only one who has ever tried is Tinmore (and his argument is so ridiculous....well...I can't.)





(Sidenote, you can argue that there is an element of discrimination here, on both sides. But don't bother, because I AGREE with you. That is not the question on this thread though.)

There is no prohibition or restrictions on non-Jews from building in Area C. None.

Yep. A perfect example of how the PA and international communities illegally build in areas outside their jurisdiction in contravention of treaties and the principle of non-intervention.

No information AT ALL about prohibitions of non-Jews on building.

Try again.

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

Imaginary people building in an imaginary country.....nothing illegal at all.

(orderly.....bring his meds, stat!)

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo II, 1995)
• Interactive Database - In the Heading:

In Area A, which included the major Palestinian cities (with the exception of Hebron), Palestinians were to be given full civil and security control. In Area B, which included Palestinian rural settlements, Palestinians were given civil and security responsibilities, with Israel retaining an “overriding responsibility” for the security of Israelis and counter-terrorism efforts. Area C, which included Israeli settlements and most vacant territory, was to remain under full Israeli control. The agreement also established measures for a democratically-elected Palestinian Council.

What can be illegal about Palestinians building in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

The Israelis have full-Control over Area C. The Israelis decide what can be built where...


Most Respectfully,
R

The Israelis have full-Control over Area C. The Israelis decide what can be built where...

That does not mean that they can violate international law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal.

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.


The West Bank city of Ariel.

In reversing the Obama administration’s shameful acceding to the UN Security Council’s 2016 resolution that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were illegal under international law, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally stated what was obvious to many legal scholars and others who have assessed the facts on the ground; namely, as Pompeo put it, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Additionally, as he noted, while the decision “does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world,” the secretary emphasized that the affirmation of the settlements’ legality “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.”

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..

The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 242​

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

I agree, Israel is the only state in the area.