Israel violates international law

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Victory67, Phoenall, et al,

Yeah, what can you say?

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

The State of Palestine was declared by the Palestinians on November 15th, 1988.

The declared borders include all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

This state was recognized by the United Nations as a non-member state in 2012.

The only problem is that the "67 borders" have never been anybody's borders.

You can't just say something and make it true.

(OBSERVATION)

According to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations.

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the partitioning of Palestine, against the wishes of the majority of our inhabitants. The Partition Plan allocated 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state. At the time, the Jewish population living in Palestine represented only one third of the total population and owned less than seven percent of the land.

Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

During the June 1967 war, Israel militarily occupied the remaining 22 percent of historic Palestine, comprising the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Only two weeks after the war’s end, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the Palestinian half of the city. Within one month, Israel began building illegal settlements in the oPt, in direct violation of international law. The international community immediately rejected Israel’s illegal annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory and continues to do so today.

Since 2002, Israel has been constructing its Wall in the oPt, grabbing more Palestinian land in an attempt to unilaterally set its borders. Israel has de-facto annexed land that falls on the western side of the Wall by severely restricting Palestinian access to these areas while at the same time facilitating Israeli access to them. In October 2003, Israel declared as “closed zones” all of the land that falls between the 1967 border and the Wall in the northern West Bank, requiring that Palestinian obtain hard-to-come-by Israeli permits to continue to live on, or otherwise access, their land in these areas.​

2. Key Facts

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.

A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

4. Our Position

A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:

Borders:

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.

SOURCE: PLO SUMMARY: Negotiations Affair Department (NAD)

(COMMENT)

Now, I do not agree with the PLO on every point made here. And I encourage everyone that has an interest in the official position held by the Palestinians on Borders. Clearly, the PLO recognizes the 1967 Borders.

Now, having said that, you are always going to run into the dyed-in-the-wool pro-Palestinian that is going to argue the point and claim that no one recognizes the 1967 Borders. There is nothing you can do about that. That is an internal domestic conflict between factions in dispute within the PLO itself. Don't spend any time on it. Just go to the PLO-NAD site and understand the current position.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

The issue now appears to be that Israel wants to pick and choose which parts of specific international laws they will respect and which parts they will ignore.

I wonder how this will affect international opinions of Israel.

You must be VERY young.
The International community has been condemning Israel since at least the 60s.

 

[rhodescholar]

When the world's international body of nations recognizes something as legitimate, it has meaning.

So why aren't you criticising the arab muslims for ignoring the UN in 1948 when it declared a 2 state partition, and declaring war on the jews?

Why aren't you criticizing the arab muslims for forcing UN peacekeepers to leave the mideast so they could attack israel in 1967?

Why are you claiming the settlements are "illegal" when UN 242 calls for a negotiated settlement of the territory?

Facts much, ****?

 

[Victory67]

So why aren't you criticising the arab muslims for ignoring the UN in 1948 when it declared a 2 state partition, and declaring war on the jews?

Why aren't you criticizing the arab muslims for forcing UN peacekeepers to leave the mideast so they could attack israel in 1967?

Why are you claiming the settlements are "illegal" when UN 242 calls for a negotiated settlement of the territory?

All settlements built on stolen private property are illegal, as per the 4th Geneva Convention which Israel is signatory to.

As to the other issues you are more than welcome to create a new thread about them and I will respond in kind.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I said that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Once in a while, you make a bit of sense.

Of course if Canada came down with guns, took over Ohio, and ran you off to Pennsylvania you would favor the right to return that you oppose now.

This does not address the right to country that exists irrespective of land ownership. It is said (constantly) that the Palestinians have no right to Palestine because they did not own land-that it was leased.

Does this mean that people who live in...say...New York City who lease apartments have no right to the US because they don't own any land.

(OBSERVATION)

It has been my experience that the issue of land ownership relative to the argument for sovereign rights has been predominately a pro-Palestinian position.

However, land ownership, while an interesting data point (something to take into consideration), is not --- in itself, an argument that supports either side of the equation in terms of sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

Again, inhabitance (residing in a given area) and property ownership are two different thing.

Sovereignty is a declaration of the "inhabitance" or "indigenous population."

The rights of the "indigenous population" (covered in Resolution 61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and the right to self determination (covered in Resolution 49/148 Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) are different kinds of rights. While they work hand-and-glove fashion, one does not presume the other.

When we say that "indigenous peoples" have the right to self-determination; we are saying (among other things) that they have the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. BUT! the right of self-determination is not exclusive to the "indigenous population." It is a right extended to all people (Palestinian and Israeli alike). Just as all individuals have the right to a nationality; it is not exclusive to "indigenous people."

While being indigenous may give the upper hand to a segment of the population, it confers no special right above that of other people. The indigenous population cannot claim superiority over an minority or immigrant culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Immigrants who obtain citizenship enjoy the same rights as the other citizens.

They can't, however, claim exclusive or superior rights.

(COMMENT)

In this case, neither can claim to be hold a superior right (neither the Palestinian or the Israel). However, the Israeli exercised their right pursuant to General Assembly guidelines in 1948. The Palestinians did not do it until 1988 (two decades later).

v/r
R

 

[rhodescholar]

All settlements built on stolen private property are illegal, as per the 4th Geneva Convention which Israel is signatory to.

UNSC resolutions supercede all other rules and guidelines, including the GC. Until the UNSC declares that all settlements are illegal, you are LYING, like every other pro-arab piece of shit here.

As to the other issues you are more than welcome to create a new thread about them and I will respond in kind.

I stated them here, respond to them here - stop deflecting or wasting our time with your ******* nonsense.

 

[Victory67]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I said that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Once in a while, you make a bit of sense.


(OBSERVATION)

It has been my experience that the issue of land ownership relative to the argument for sovereign rights has been predominately a pro-Palestinian position.

However, land ownership, while an interesting data point (something to take into consideration), is not --- in itself, an argument that supports either side of the equation in terms of sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

Again, inhabitance (residing in a given area) and property ownership are two different thing.

Sovereignty is a declaration of the "inhabitance" or "indigenous population."

The rights of the "indigenous population" (covered in Resolution 61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and the right to self determination (covered in Resolution 49/148 Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination) are different kinds of rights. While they work hand-and-glove fashion, one does not presume the other.

When we say that "indigenous peoples" have the right to self-determination; we are saying (among other things) that they have the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. BUT! the right of self-determination is not exclusive to the "indigenous population." It is a right extended to all people (Palestinian and Israeli alike). Just as all individuals have the right to a nationality; it is not exclusive to "indigenous people."

While being indigenous may give the upper hand to a segment of the population, it confers no special right above that of other people. The indigenous population cannot claim superiority over an minority or immigrant culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Immigrants who obtain citizenship enjoy the same rights as the other citizens.

They can't, however, claim exclusive or superior rights.

(COMMENT)

In this case, neither can claim to be hold a superior right (neither the Palestinian or the Israel). However, the Israeli exercised their right pursuant to General Assembly guidelines in 1948. The Palestinians did not do it until 1988 (two decades later).

v/r
R

Had the Arabs accepted UN Resolution 181 the Israelis would have been very unhappy as they would have no control over any parts of Jerusalem and have much less land than today.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

Yes, well it is not exactly stolen. You may say it is a kind of misappropriation subject to the Oslo Accord.

So why aren't you criticising the arab muslims for ignoring the UN in 1948 when it declared a 2 state partition, and declaring war on the jews?

Why aren't you criticizing the arab muslims for forcing UN peacekeepers to leave the mideast so they could attack israel in 1967?

Why are you claiming the settlements are "illegal" when UN 242 calls for a negotiated settlement of the territory?

All settlements built on stolen private property are illegal, as per the 4th Geneva Convention which Israel is signatory to.

As to the other issues you are more than welcome to create a new thread about them and I will respond in kind.

(COMMENT)

As soon as the Palestinians agree to a Peace Arrangement with the Israelis, the settlements will be a resolved issue. The longer the negotiations are held hostage, the settlements will be held.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

Had the Arabs accepted UN Resolution 181 the Israelis would have been very unhappy as they would have no control over any parts of Jerusalem and have much less land than today.

The jews accepted 181 you stupid XXXX XXXX moron idiot asshole. Try facts on instead of lying you worthless turd:

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public and Jewish Agency...but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world..."

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I said that.

Immigrants who obtain citizenship enjoy the same rights as the other citizens.

They can't, however, claim exclusive or superior rights.

(COMMENT)

In this case, neither can claim to be hold a superior right (neither the Palestinian or the Israel). However, the Israeli exercised their right pursuant to General Assembly guidelines in 1948. The Palestinians did not do it until 1988 (two decades later).

v/r
R

Had the Arabs accepted UN Resolution 181 the Israelis would have been very unhappy as they would have no control over any parts of Jerusalem and have much less land than today.

So the Arabs were concerned over Israel's happiness?
You just stepped on your own balls with that one.

 

[Victory67]

Victory67, et al,

Yes, well it is not exactly stolen. You may say it is a kind of misappropriation subject to the Oslo Accord. As soon as the Palestinians agree to a Peace Arrangement with the Israelis, the settlements will be a resolved issue. The longer the negotiations are held hostage, the settlements will be held.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are fully well aware that according to the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel is a signatory to, an Occupying Power may only confiscate private land for military purposes.

All settlements that exist on private land that was confiscated for military purposes, as per the Israeli military government that rules the West Bank, are illegal.

This is why the Israeli Supreme Court deemed such confiscations illegal in 1979.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

Maybe! Might have been...

Had the Arabs accepted UN Resolution 181 the Israelis would have been very unhappy as they would have no control over any parts of Jerusalem and have much less land than today.

(COMMENT)

This is pure speculation. One could say that "if" the Arab Palestinian had accepted UN Resolution 181, the Palestinians would have "probably" been much better off then they are now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

Had the Arabs accepted UN Resolution 181 the Israelis would have been very unhappy as they would have no control over any parts of Jerusalem and have much less land than today.

The jews accepted 181 you stupid XXXX XXXX moron idiot asshole. Try facts on instead of lying you worthless turd:

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public and Jewish Agency...but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world..."

You DO realize we're dealing with a fantasizing idiot who "seemingly" remembers an 1967 ARAB victory.

 

[Victory67]

Victory67, et al,

Maybe! Might have been... This is pure speculation. One could say that "if" the Arab Palestinian had accepted UN Resolution 181, the Palestinians would have "probably" been much better off then they are now.

Most Respectfully,
R

Its informed speculation based on the last 70 years of Israeli history.

The UN Resolution 181 borders were very dissapointing and insufficient for many Israelis. The 1948 War gave them the opportunity to conquer lands that they felt there entitled to. As did the 1967 War.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

Oh, yes, I am well aware of Article 49, and how the Palestinian-Israel Agreement affects them.

Victory67, et al,

Yes, well it is not exactly stolen. You may say it is a kind of misappropriation subject to the Oslo Accord. As soon as the Palestinians agree to a Peace Arrangement with the Israelis, the settlements will be a resolved issue. The longer the negotiations are held hostage, the settlements will be held.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are fully well aware that according to the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel is a signatory to, an Occupying Power may only confiscate private land for military purposes.

All settlements that exist on private land that was confiscated for military purposes, as per the Israeli military government that rules the West Bank, are illegal.

This is why the Israeli Supreme Court deemed such confiscations illegal in 1979.

(COMMENT)

That is why the Oslo Accords, 1990's, address them and made them a Article V permanent status negotiations that should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Victory67]

Victory67, et al,

Oh, yes, I am well aware of Article 49, and how the Palestinian-Israel Agreement affects them.
(COMMENT)

That is why the Oslo Accords, 1990's, address them and made them a Article V permanent status negotiations that should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Oslo Accords failed to address existing settlements, their expansion, and the construction of new settlements.

Without this, we must fall back on existing previous law that does directly deal with these issues, and that is the 4th Geneva Conventions.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

That is a perfectly reasonable adversarial position to take.

Victory67,

Oh, yes, I am well aware of Article 49, and how the Palestinian-Israel Agreement affects them.
(COMMENT)

That is why the Oslo Accords, 1990's, address them and made them a Article V permanent status negotiations that should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Oslo Accords failed to address existing settlements, their expansion, and the construction of new settlements.

Without this, we must fall back on existing previous law that does directly deal with these issues, and that is the 4th Geneva Conventions.

(COMMENT)

That is a peaceful, non-violent approach to take. I think it needs to go into litigation.

v/r
R

 

[Victory67]

Victory67, et al,

That is a perfectly reasonable adversarial position to take.
That is a peaceful, non-violent approach to take. I think it needs to go into litigation.

v/r
R

If Israel and Palestine do not reach a peace accord, I hope that Palestine files a major lawsuit with the International Criminal Court over this issue.

Israel must be held to account for their theft of Arab private land.

Either through mutual agreemant or international courts.

 

[Phoenall]

there is nothing sweet about a position that denies the reality of the un position when it comes to international law. The un recently recognized an observer palestinian state to the 67 borders...all attempts by people who hold this position are dooming the israeli state with constant war-fare that she cannot win in the long ruin.

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

Good point. The '67 border was an Abbas thing. The people were not consulted in that decision.

Therre were never any '67 borders, read UN 242 which is what set the issue in motion. It states ceasefire lines and not borders, no matter what the muslims say. The '67 borders is a muslim thing that they use to try and steal land, they fail because the decent people see what is really said in UN res 242.

 

[Phoenall]

it did no such thing and you have never shown were any un document states that palestine is recognised to the non existent '67 borders. All you ever produce is the press release of the palestinians spokesperson that is not acceptance of the '67 borders at all.

The State of Palestine was declared by the Palestinians on November 15th, 1988.

The declared borders include all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

This state was recognized by the United Nations as a non-member state in 2012.

But not to any borders, they could not declare those borders as Israel had already declared them in 1948