Report: EU building hundreds of illegal structures for Palestinians in Area C of West Bank

[Challenger]

montelatici, et al,

I think you need to re-read the posting.

Do you just enjoy reading the nonsense you write, Rocco. Why are always so full of shit?

Let me explain this to you carefully once and for all so that you quit posting this nonsense.

First, your implication that Article 49(6) is intended to protect the citizens of the occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, is ridiculous and has been rejected by every International Law expert. The sole purpose of the 4th Geneva Convention is to protect the civilians living under occupation, not the citizens of the occupying power, who are not afforded any protection by the Convention.

Second, the term “transfer” does not imply forced, as evidenced by another article in the Convention, Article 49(1), which forbids the deportation of civilians from the occupied territories, and uses the phrase “forcible transfer,” not simply the term “transfer,” as Article 49(6) does.

Further, the settler’s voluntary cooperation in the transfer does not diminish from its illegal character, pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 49, as long as the Occupying Power stands behind the project.

Article 49(6) is always applicable as long as the occupying power is facilitating the transfer of its own citizens, whether forced or not. What Article 49 (6) aimed to prevent was not situations such as those in which Nazi Germany was deporting its Jewish citizens to the death camps, but instead Nazi Germany’s intention to transfer its ethnic German citizens into the Eastern European territories it conquered as part of its Lebensraum policy to alter the demographics of those territories.

So once and for all. Shut up. Your BS may fool some of your little, mentally challenged that have little or no higher education, Zionutter friends, but not someone that has some familiarity with international law.

(COMMENT)

I posted Article 49 so that anyone reading the post can see the referenced material.

I made two implications:

• FIRST, that Article 49 aspects need to be litigate in the light of the fact that the Palestinians agreed to Area "C".
• SECOND: The Palestinians have not followed the agreed upon dispute resolution process.

Neither of these implications have anything to do with your diatribe. I did not raise the "force" issue at all, nor did I imply that Article 49 is for the benefit of the Occupying Power.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say in Oslo that settlements are legal.

Agreements cannot trump international law.

Already posted that for you

YES THEY CAN as that is how International law comes about, by agreements made between two consenting parties. If this was not the case the whole world would be in perpetual war.

Utter rubbish, again. International laws come about through universally accepted international "norms" of behaviour. While treaties can and do play a part in their formation, bi-lateral or even multi-lateral agreements do not (unless the rest of the world subsequently agrees). Country A signs an agreement with Country B, however Countries C,D,E,F,G and H disagree with that agreement, therefore that agreement does not become International law.

 

[Challenger]

I feel a RoccoR moment coming over me....and back in the room....fun though reading this "map war" is, sadly it’s irrelevant to the OP.

The OP states, “The EU is establishing facts on the ground in the West Bank, building hundreds of illegal structures near Ma'ale Adumim and E1 which the government does not remove because it does not want a diplomatic tangle with the Europeans, according to a report released by Regavim.”

OK, let’s look at the legality of these EU structures. I asked earlier for clarification on area C, which I think we can all agree is territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and over which Israel has control. However, Oslo accords or no Oslo accords, Israel does not have sovereignty over this area nor has it formally annexed the area (an illegal act in any event). This makes Israel an occupying power as defined by The Hague convention of 1907 subsequently incorporated into the Geneva Conventions (IV).

Still with me? Under both The Hague and Geneva conventions an occupying power must, “...ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country” (article 43 Hague)

Basically this means that Israeli law does not necessarily apply in the occupied territories so how can these structures be “illegal”?

Well we can perhaps spend a lot of time and energy debating the status of Palestine between 1948 and 1967 yet again, but to save us all the bother, ultimately the laws that applied in area C between 1948 and 1967 whatever its status, were either Jordanian (Planning Law Number 79) or British (The Town and Country Planning Law 1945).

It may come as a surprise to some that the Zionist Occupation Forces recognise (and often abuse) the Jordanian legal system within the occupied territories of Palestine, which means that the law that applies in any building and construction work is the Jordanian Planning Law number 79 of 1966

In a nutshell, this law requires any development plans to be prepared, approved, and kept up to date by local authorities and construction permits may be refused if a development conflicts with the local plan; penalties for unpermitted development may include, in extreme cases, demolition. The law provides for a High Planning Council advised by a Central Planning Department which would prepare and approve 'regional' plans, and local municipalities or groups of villages would prepare 'outline' and 'detailed' plans, to be approved by the High Planning Council and District Commission, respectively. All of these institutions exist within the PA.

Consequently as a) The EU does not recognise the Zionist Occupation of Palestine as either legal or permanent, building permits would have been sought from the PA before building work commenced. The EU structures are therefore legal under International Law and Israel knows it. This is why the structures have not been demolished.

The OP is therefore misleading and a rather pathetic attempt to somehow create equivalency between Zionist settlement building (illegal) and EU building (legal) where none exists.

Typical Hasbara BS

Not so respectfully, Challenger.

They are illegal by dint of a treaty signed by Israel and the PLO giving Israel full control of that area.

No treaty has ever been signed. That's why it's called the Oslo "Accords" not the Oslo "Treaty", furthermore you forgot the word "temporary" and the clause, "pending final status agreement" in your reply.

Means nothing when taken in regards to what was agreed and signed for


Key agreements in the Oslo process were:

• Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.

• The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" ("DOPOISGA"),[10] which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).

• The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[11] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel. The Paris Protocol was incorporated in Article XXIV of Oslo II.

• The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.


And this which explains the legality of the Settlements

Continued settlement expansion[edit]
While Peres had limited settlement construction at the request of US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,[18] Netanyahu continued construction within existing Israeli settlements,[19] and put forward plans for the construction of a new neighborhood, Har Homa, in East Jerusalem. However, he fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991–92 level and refrained from building new settlements, although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban.[18] Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991–92: 13,960, After Oslo: 1994–95: 3,840, 1996–1997: 3,570.[20]

being the start of the five-year transitional period​

Indeed.

Which was extended by mutual consent, or didn't you read that part in a subsequent meeting ?


Wye River Memorandum

The Wye River Memorandum was an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a summit in Wye River (US) held from 15–23 October 1998. The Memorandum aimed to resume the implementation of the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accord). It was signed on the final day, 23 October 1998.[1] On 17 November, Israel's 120 member parliament, the Knesset, approved the Memorandum by a vote of 75–19. The Memorandum determined that it would enter into force on 2 November 1998, ten days from the date of signature.

Wye River Memorandum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was it? "The two sides would immediately resume permanent status negotiations on an accelerated basis and will make a determined effort to achieve the mutual goal of reaching an agreement by 4 May 1999." --from your source.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I think you need to re-read the posting.

Do you just enjoy reading the nonsense you write, Rocco. Why are always so full of shit?

Let me explain this to you carefully once and for all so that you quit posting this nonsense.

First, your implication that Article 49(6) is intended to protect the citizens of the occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, is ridiculous and has been rejected by every International Law expert. The sole purpose of the 4th Geneva Convention is to protect the civilians living under occupation, not the citizens of the occupying power, who are not afforded any protection by the Convention.

Second, the term “transfer” does not imply forced, as evidenced by another article in the Convention, Article 49(1), which forbids the deportation of civilians from the occupied territories, and uses the phrase “forcible transfer,” not simply the term “transfer,” as Article 49(6) does.

Further, the settler’s voluntary cooperation in the transfer does not diminish from its illegal character, pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 49, as long as the Occupying Power stands behind the project.

Article 49(6) is always applicable as long as the occupying power is facilitating the transfer of its own citizens, whether forced or not. What Article 49 (6) aimed to prevent was not situations such as those in which Nazi Germany was deporting its Jewish citizens to the death camps, but instead Nazi Germany’s intention to transfer its ethnic German citizens into the Eastern European territories it conquered as part of its Lebensraum policy to alter the demographics of those territories.

So once and for all. Shut up. Your BS may fool some of your little, mentally challenged that have little or no higher education, Zionutter friends, but not someone that has some familiarity with international law.

(COMMENT)

I posted Article 49 so that anyone reading the post can see the referenced material.

I made two implications:

• FIRST, that Article 49 aspects need to be litigate in the light of the fact that the Palestinians agreed to Area "C".
• SECOND: The Palestinians have not followed the agreed upon dispute resolution process.

Neither of these implications have anything to do with your diatribe. I did not raise the "force" issue at all, nor did I imply that Article 49 is for the benefit of the Occupying Power.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say in Oslo that settlements are legal.

Agreements cannot trump international law.

Already posted that for you

YES THEY CAN as that is how International law comes about, by agreements made between two consenting parties. If this was not the case the whole world would be in perpetual war.

Utter rubbish, again. International laws come about through universally accepted international "norms" of behaviour. While treaties can and do play a part in their formation, bi-lateral or even multi-lateral agreements do not (unless the rest of the world subsequently agrees). Country A signs an agreement with Country B, however Countries C,D,E,F,G and H disagree with that agreement, therefore that agreement does not become International law.

It does as far as country A and country B are concerned. And as far as it matters the treaty enters into CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW . That is all International laws were back in the dark distant past, just an agreement between nations that was ratified and became law. Much as the one beloved of team Palestine that made the acquisition of land through war illegal. Made illegal by the UN who never had the power to make such a law in the first place.

 

[Phoenall]

They are illegal by dint of a treaty signed by Israel and the PLO giving Israel full control of that area.

No treaty has ever been signed. That's why it's called the Oslo "Accords" not the Oslo "Treaty", furthermore you forgot the word "temporary" and the clause, "pending final status agreement" in your reply.

Means nothing when taken in regards to what was agreed and signed for


Key agreements in the Oslo process were:

• Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.

• The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" ("DOPOISGA"),[10] which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).

• The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[11] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel. The Paris Protocol was incorporated in Article XXIV of Oslo II.

• The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.


And this which explains the legality of the Settlements

Continued settlement expansion[edit]
While Peres had limited settlement construction at the request of US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,[18] Netanyahu continued construction within existing Israeli settlements,[19] and put forward plans for the construction of a new neighborhood, Har Homa, in East Jerusalem. However, he fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991–92 level and refrained from building new settlements, although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban.[18] Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991–92: 13,960, After Oslo: 1994–95: 3,840, 1996–1997: 3,570.[20]

being the start of the five-year transitional period​

Indeed.

Which was extended by mutual consent, or didn't you read that part in a subsequent meeting ?


Wye River Memorandum

The Wye River Memorandum was an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a summit in Wye River (US) held from 15–23 October 1998. The Memorandum aimed to resume the implementation of the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accord). It was signed on the final day, 23 October 1998.[1] On 17 November, Israel's 120 member parliament, the Knesset, approved the Memorandum by a vote of 75–19. The Memorandum determined that it would enter into force on 2 November 1998, ten days from the date of signature.

Wye River Memorandum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was it? "The two sides would immediately resume permanent status negotiations on an accelerated basis and will make a determined effort to achieve the mutual goal of reaching an agreement by 4 May 1999." --from your source.

Still made the details of Oslo 2 CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and extended the period of the accords. That is why Abbas tried to use it last year to bankrupt Israel.

 

[Challenger]

montelatici, et al,

I think you need to re-read the posting.

Do you just enjoy reading the nonsense you write, Rocco. Why are always so full of shit?

Let me explain this to you carefully once and for all so that you quit posting this nonsense.

First, your implication that Article 49(6) is intended to protect the citizens of the occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, is ridiculous and has been rejected by every International Law expert. The sole purpose of the 4th Geneva Convention is to protect the civilians living under occupation, not the citizens of the occupying power, who are not afforded any protection by the Convention.

Second, the term “transfer” does not imply forced, as evidenced by another article in the Convention, Article 49(1), which forbids the deportation of civilians from the occupied territories, and uses the phrase “forcible transfer,” not simply the term “transfer,” as Article 49(6) does.

Further, the settler’s voluntary cooperation in the transfer does not diminish from its illegal character, pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 49, as long as the Occupying Power stands behind the project.

Article 49(6) is always applicable as long as the occupying power is facilitating the transfer of its own citizens, whether forced or not. What Article 49 (6) aimed to prevent was not situations such as those in which Nazi Germany was deporting its Jewish citizens to the death camps, but instead Nazi Germany’s intention to transfer its ethnic German citizens into the Eastern European territories it conquered as part of its Lebensraum policy to alter the demographics of those territories.

So once and for all. Shut up. Your BS may fool some of your little, mentally challenged that have little or no higher education, Zionutter friends, but not someone that has some familiarity with international law.

(COMMENT)

I posted Article 49 so that anyone reading the post can see the referenced material.

I made two implications:

• FIRST, that Article 49 aspects need to be litigate in the light of the fact that the Palestinians agreed to Area "C".
• SECOND: The Palestinians have not followed the agreed upon dispute resolution process.

Neither of these implications have anything to do with your diatribe. I did not raise the "force" issue at all, nor did I imply that Article 49 is for the benefit of the Occupying Power.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say in Oslo that settlements are legal.

Agreements cannot trump international law.

Already posted that for you

YES THEY CAN as that is how International law comes about, by agreements made between two consenting parties. If this was not the case the whole world would be in perpetual war.

Utter rubbish, again. International laws come about through universally accepted international "norms" of behaviour. While treaties can and do play a part in their formation, bi-lateral or even multi-lateral agreements do not (unless the rest of the world subsequently agrees). Country A signs an agreement with Country B, however Countries C,D,E,F,G and H disagree with that agreement, therefore that agreement does not become International law.

It does as far as country A and country B are concerned. And as far as it matters the treaty enters into CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW . That is all International laws were back in the dark distant past, just an agreement between nations that was ratified and became law. Much as the one beloved of team Palestine that made the acquisition of land through war illegal. Made illegal by the UN who never had the power to make such a law in the first place.

Drivel. A bi-lateral agreement does not "enter into Customary International Law", it remains a bi-lateral agreement until and unless enough other countries think it is such a good idea they make similar agreements between themselves. Only once that happens it becomes the "custom". The U.N. Charter made the acquisition of territory through war illegal and was signed off by all the major powers of the time including all the nations who were part of the then united nations coalition of 26 allied nation fighting Germany and Japan up until 1945. The U.N. Charter was the cumulation of principles put forward in the London Declaration and the Atlantic Charter of 1941. It forms the basis on which all International Law stems; thats where the righ and power stems from. From that point any country wishing to join the U.N. had to sign up for the U.N. Charter. That includes Zionist Israel, who given it's apalling track record, should have been expelled by now (and probably would have been but for the U.S. veto).

 

[Challenger]

No treaty has ever been signed. That's why it's called the Oslo "Accords" not the Oslo "Treaty", furthermore you forgot the word "temporary" and the clause, "pending final status agreement" in your reply.

Means nothing when taken in regards to what was agreed and signed for


Key agreements in the Oslo process were:

• Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.

• The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" ("DOPOISGA"),[10] which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).

• The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[11] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel. The Paris Protocol was incorporated in Article XXIV of Oslo II.

• The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.


And this which explains the legality of the Settlements

Continued settlement expansion[edit]
While Peres had limited settlement construction at the request of US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,[18] Netanyahu continued construction within existing Israeli settlements,[19] and put forward plans for the construction of a new neighborhood, Har Homa, in East Jerusalem. However, he fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991–92 level and refrained from building new settlements, although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban.[18] Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991–92: 13,960, After Oslo: 1994–95: 3,840, 1996–1997: 3,570.[20]

being the start of the five-year transitional period​

Indeed.

Which was extended by mutual consent, or didn't you read that part in a subsequent meeting ?


Wye River Memorandum

The Wye River Memorandum was an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a summit in Wye River (US) held from 15–23 October 1998. The Memorandum aimed to resume the implementation of the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accord). It was signed on the final day, 23 October 1998.[1] On 17 November, Israel's 120 member parliament, the Knesset, approved the Memorandum by a vote of 75–19. The Memorandum determined that it would enter into force on 2 November 1998, ten days from the date of signature.

Wye River Memorandum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was it? "The two sides would immediately resume permanent status negotiations on an accelerated basis and will make a determined effort to achieve the mutual goal of reaching an agreement by 4 May 1999." --from your source.

Still made the details of Oslo 2 CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and extended the period of the accords. That is why Abbas tried to use it last year to bankrupt Israel.

No it didn't.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not say that.

Where does it say in Oslo that settlements are legal.

Agreements cannot trump international law.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo II Accord [Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1995)(A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997)] establishes the areas of control and stipulates jurisdiction (See UN Map OCHAoPt 22 February 2011).

If the Israelis retain jurisdiction, then the issue of settlements will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations; in accordance with the Accord.

I don't practice law. So I can't tell you what trumps what. But I would be willing to bet that if the Palestine Liberation Organization is recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, then an agreement is an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not say that.

Where does it say in Oslo that settlements are legal.

Agreements cannot trump international law.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo II Accord [Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1995)(A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997)] establishes the areas of control and stipulates jurisdiction (See UN Map OCHAoPt 22 February 2011).

If the Israelis retain jurisdiction, then the issue of settlements will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations; in accordance with the Accord.

I don't practice law. So I can't tell you what trumps what. But I would be willing to bet that if the Palestine Liberation Organization is recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, then an agreement is an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Technically Israel only retains responsibility for external security of the borders of Israel/Palestine (including air and sea) and the security of Israelis and certain settlements in area C specified in the annexes to Oslo II. Israel has reneged on just about everything in the Oslo agreements, so it's no surprise they are widely considered a dead letter, de facto null and void.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Excellent Point.

Technically Israel only retains responsibility for external security of the borders of Israel/Palestine (including air and sea) and the security of Israelis and certain settlements in area C specified in the annexes to Oslo II. Israel has reneged on just about everything in the Oslo agreements, so it's no surprise they are widely considered a dead letter, de facto null and void.

(COMMENT)

I agree, the success of the Oslo Accords is a dismal failure. But that does not mean that the agreement is not still in place.

This is why we have to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies --- or --- arrangements (replacing the Oslo Accords) or some other peaceful means of their choice (Israeli/Palestinian).

There are side issues that need to be resolved. For instance, the displacement of Palestinians in Palestine (West Bank) needs to be addressed. While this is a Rome Statute (Article 8 (2b) viii) concept that I discussed with our friend "montelatici" in another thread, it is a specific implication that we did not mention (but I implied indirectly). There will be the issue of compensation, reparations, and civil judgments that will need to be addressed.

Personally, I completely disagree with the Israeli (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s) expansion plans. In fact I believe that the Israelis should quietly begin a withdrawal from the West Bank; relocating Israeli Settlers elsewhere in Israel. But this is a risk. Maybe an unacceptable risk. The Israelis will need to judge that assessment. To date, there is no demonstrated example of the non-violent and peaceful potential behind Palestine if the Occupation where to end. When the Israelis withdrew from the Gaza Strip, as an example, the radical Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) flourished.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Penelope]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

 

[Phoenall]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

 

[Penelope]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

For what? They are upset because the Pals are going to the ICC and making threats. They have nukes but wont let the inspectors in to check. They enter homes without warrants and bulldoze them down. They steal land.

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia (verify the footnotes yourself)

 

[Phoenall]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

For what? They are upset because the Pals are going to the ICC and making threats. They have nukes but wont let the inspectors in to check. They enter homes without warrants and bulldoze them down. They steal land.

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia (verify the footnotes yourself)

That is not proven to be the case.

So try again, a link that shows Israel is in breach of all international laws as you implied above.

 

[montelatici]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

From the clown that never provides links and invents things.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not say that.

Where does it say in Oslo that settlements are legal.

Agreements cannot trump international law.

(COMMENT)

The Oslo II Accord [Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1995)(A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997)] establishes the areas of control and stipulates jurisdiction (See UN Map OCHAoPt 22 February 2011).

If the Israelis retain jurisdiction, then the issue of settlements will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations; in accordance with the Accord.

I don't practice law. So I can't tell you what trumps what. But I would be willing to bet that if the Palestine Liberation Organization is recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, then an agreement is an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

The reason I said that is because there are three things that will void an agreement.

Corruption.
Coercion.
Non conformance to legal norms.

You will find elements of all three of those in all of the agreements.

An agreement cannot make legal what is otherwise illegal. No leader can sign away the rights of his people.

That is why I oppose any of the fake peace talks. There will be no valid agreement. It simply isn't going to happen.

 

[Challenger]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

From the clown that never provides links and invents things.

Now be fair, he does copy/paste stuff from the Zionist approved bits in Wikipedia, although even then he makes sure to cherry-pick only the bits that agree with whatever point he's trying to make up.

 

[Phoenall]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

From the clown that never provides links and invents things.

LIAR

 

[Phoenall]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

From the clown that never provides links and invents things.

Now be fair, he does copy/paste stuff from the Zionist approved bits in Wikipedia, although even then he makes sure to cherry-pick only the bits that agree with whatever point he's trying to make up.

A pity then that there is no such thing as Zionist approved, the muslims have seen to that

 

[Challenger]

Except that it is now a part of international law and they need a permit to build. They didn't get that.

Israel does not abide by international law so this comment is moot.

HOW ABOUT A VERIFIABLE LINK FROM A NON PARTISAN SOURCE

From the clown that never provides links and invents things.

Now be fair, he does copy/paste stuff from the Zionist approved bits in Wikipedia, although even then he makes sure to cherry-pick only the bits that agree with whatever point he's trying to make up.

A pity then that there is no such thing as Zionist approved, the muslims have seen to that

 

[Penelope]

Of course their side of the story is the right side.