Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Indeependent]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

Too bad the King of Jordan doesn't swallow your bullshit.

 

[Shusha]

The conflict is still on-going. Return can and should be discussed when the conflict ends. Not before.

That would apply only to Palestinians wishing to return and not the likes of those Russian Jewish people illegally residing in the WB ?

It would apply to all peoples engaged in conflict with Israel.

 

[Indeependent]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?

"Allah" told them to attack.

 

[Indeependent]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

Both I and the IDF welcome an all out attack by the Israel's Arab neighbors.
It seems that God is on Israel's side.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?

"Allah" told them to attack.

Actually, it was Nasser who told Hussein to attack. He assured Jordan that the Egyptian air force would provide air cover to Jordanian troops, but this was after the Egyptian air force had already been largely destroyed. Nasser had clearly intended to relieve some of the pressure on Egyptian troops by sacrificing Jordanian troops.

 

[Indeependent]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?

"Allah" told them to attack.

Actually, it was Nasser who told Hussein to attack. He assured Jordan that the Egyptian air force would provide air cover to Jordanian troops, but this was after the Egyptian air force had already been largely destroyed. Nasser had clearly intended to relieve some of the pressure on Egyptian troops by sacrificing Jordanian troops.

And now Egypt and Jordan pay Israel to protect their borders from the Arabs in Gaza and Israel's East Bank.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?

"Allah" told them to attack.

Actually, it was Nasser who told Hussein to attack. He assured Jordan that the Egyptian air force would provide air cover to Jordanian troops, but this was after the Egyptian air force had already been largely destroyed. Nasser had clearly intended to relieve some of the pressure on Egyptian troops by sacrificing Jordanian troops.

And now Egypt and Jordan pay Israel to protect their borders from the Arabs in Gaza and Israel's East Bank.

And now heat their homes and cook their meals with Israeli natural gas.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Victors always have and always will write history. Islamists lost in Israel but they won in Constantinople and just about everywhere else in the Middle East, turning most of the region into a Hell hole. Anyone who does not see that is just lying to themselves.

 

[Indeependent]

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?

"Allah" told them to attack.

Actually, it was Nasser who told Hussein to attack. He assured Jordan that the Egyptian air force would provide air cover to Jordanian troops, but this was after the Egyptian air force had already been largely destroyed. Nasser had clearly intended to relieve some of the pressure on Egyptian troops by sacrificing Jordanian troops.

And now Egypt and Jordan pay Israel to protect their borders from the Arabs in Gaza and Israel's East Bank.

And now heat their homes and cook their meals with Israeli natural gas.

That has actually been going on forever...EVIL JOOS!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Victors always have and always will write history. Islamists lost in Israel but they won in Constantinople and just about everywhere else in the Middle East, turning most of the region into a Hell hole. Anyone who does not see that is just lying to themselves.

lol Actually, these days, it is the losers, the Arabs, who are writing the history for the UN and EU, but the future belongs to Israel despite the continuing efforts of the UN and EU to destroy it.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The link wouldn't open for me and I can only find Meron's letters in their original Hebrew. (My Hebrew is not good enough to translate them).

Nevertheless, I have found some partial quotes, including this one:

We argue that this area of the Mandate on the Land of Israel was divided in 1949 only according to Armistice Lines, which, under the Armistice agreements themselves, had merely military, not political, significance and were not determinative until the final settlement. We go on to say that the agreements themselves were achieved as a temporary measure according to Security Council action based on Article 40 of the United Nations Charter. We also argue that Jordan itself unilaterally annexed the West Bank to the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and that the Armistice Lines no longer exist because the agreements expired due to the war and Arab aggression.

Thus, it appears to me that Judge Meron is making the same argument that I am making. And later, in another quote, he suggests that while the above is true, the international community is not likely to accept it and suggests other legal arguments to support the right of Israeli settlement in the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

I'll remind you of the specific clauses in the Armistice Agreement of 1949:

Article II (2): It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations

Article VI (8,9): The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto

The link won't open for you but you have just managed to find some stuff that " appears " to support your own argument but nothing where he references the application of the 4th GC that supports mine. How convenient is that ?

Not only that you actually never responded at all to the quote I took from his words regarding the advice he gave to not try to settle the land with civilians.

Nor a word of acknowledgement that he stated the Golan , being outside of the Mandate , was absolutely a violation of the 4th GV and settlement being obviously a flagrant violation of it

Seeing as I am nowhere near fair use violation here I will quote some more and you can ask others you are friendly with to verify the accuracy or not. From the link....

Our policy with respect to Jerusalem has been to refrain from getting into “legalistic” arguments and to try to prevent clear contradictions with the Geneva Convention, so as to preclude the question whether the Convention applies or not from arising.

The above is a clear......... the Israeli policy was to steer clear of the 4th GC and avoid getting into " legalistic arguments"

I can provide more links and more quotes because they are from different letters

His conclusion,( Meron) simply stated in the cover note to the opinion, was that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention".

SOAS: Hotung Project: 1967 Meron opinion

try this one

https://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/file48485.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

There is nothing to argue. Israel exists in point of fact. And the very idea that an existing State should be "undone" after nearly a hundred years only confirms the special rules which appear to be applied solely to Israel.

Of course there is an argument that Israel does not have title to the OPTs. To dismiss it as you have shows a deeply entrenched position that will not even entertain the valid arguments of others

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

 

[Spartacactcus]

There simply is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling Israeli control of Judea and Samaria an occupation or illegal in any way. Settlements are legal or illegal according to Israeli law and the UN has no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter.

The UN and its SC are the mechanism to facilitate and enforce international law and where international law and a domestic national law clash international law has primacy. You have it the wrong way around.

 

[Indeependent]

There simply is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling Israeli control of Judea and Samaria an occupation or illegal in any way. Settlements are legal or illegal according to Israeli law and the UN has no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter.

The UN and its SC are the mechanism to facilitate and enforce international law and where international law and a domestic national law clash international law has primacy. You have it the wrong way around.

The UN did a great job of protecting Lebanon from Syrian conquest (I notice you don't take note of this) and of preventing the Syrians from building underground terrorist buildings under Lebanon.

Even today the UN has no power to stop African dictators from starving their people.

The UN isn't worth dog waste.

 

[Shusha]

The link wouldn't open for me and I can only find Meron's letters in their original Hebrew. (My Hebrew is not good enough to translate them).

Nevertheless, I have found some partial quotes, including this one:

We argue that this area of the Mandate on the Land of Israel was divided in 1949 only according to Armistice Lines, which, under the Armistice agreements themselves, had merely military, not political, significance and were not determinative until the final settlement. We go on to say that the agreements themselves were achieved as a temporary measure according to Security Council action based on Article 40 of the United Nations Charter. We also argue that Jordan itself unilaterally annexed the West Bank to the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and that the Armistice Lines no longer exist because the agreements expired due to the war and Arab aggression.

Thus, it appears to me that Judge Meron is making the same argument that I am making. And later, in another quote, he suggests that while the above is true, the international community is not likely to accept it and suggests other legal arguments to support the right of Israeli settlement in the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

I'll remind you of the specific clauses in the Armistice Agreement of 1949:

Article II (2): It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations

Article VI (8,9): The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto

The link won't open for you but you have just managed to find some stuff that " appears " to support your own argument but nothing where he references the application of the 4th GC that supports mine. How convenient is that ?

Not only that you actually never responded at all to the quote I took from his words regarding the advice he gave to not try to settle the land with civilians.

Nor a word of acknowledgement that he stated the Golan , being outside of the Mandate , was absolutely a violation of the 4th GV and settlement being obviously a flagrant violation of it

Seeing as I am nowhere near fair use violation here I will quote some more and you can ask others you are friendly with to verify the accuracy or not. From the link....

Our policy with respect to Jerusalem has been to refrain from getting into “legalistic” arguments and to try to prevent clear contradictions with the Geneva Convention, so as to preclude the question whether the Convention applies or not from arising.

The above is a clear......... the Israeli policy was to steer clear of the 4th GC and avoid getting into " legalistic arguments"

I can provide more links and more quotes because they are from different letters

His conclusion,( Meron) simply stated in the cover note to the opinion, was that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention".

SOAS: Hotung Project: 1967 Meron opinion

try this one

https://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/file48485.pdf

None of the SOAS links work for me.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually he is right. The laws do make it illegal and recognize settlements on occupied territory as illegal. But other than Russia and Israel, other countries get away with it. Actually so does Russia but there have sanctions applied. So I agree there is a double standard.

Has not Israel gotten away with it for nigh on 63 years already ? Not only have they gotten away with it they have actually been protected from any legal action by the US veto at the UNSC and have been bankrolled whilst subjugating the right of an entire people to self determination in their own state.

I don't see how you think they have somehow been the victims of a double standard here.

How long did Saddams attempt at occupying/annexing Kuwait last ?

Have the Russians started to move large amounts of people into Crimea in illegal settlements they are constructing ? Sure it's a occupation, an illegal occupation imo but they have endured sanctions because of it and they are on the UNSC!!

Those resolutions are SO OLD that they only applied to returning the West Bank to Jordan.. Not to recognize the non-existent leadership of an "autonomous" Palestine.. And as i've just explained, the Jordanians EXPELLED the Palestinian leadership for commandeering some armored equipment in Lebanon and marching on the capitol of Jordan...

Palestinians in the West Bank have more opportunity and success than most of the other displaced Palis in neighboring Arab countries living in restricted camps or in confinement...

This doesn't EXCUSE a nearly 60 yr old stale "occupation"... But you cannot negotiate for "statehood" or equivalent autonomy without a LEADERSHIP that speaks for most of the people and has world diplomatic credibility..

Who's fault is that?

 

[Spartacactcus]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

 

[toomuchtime_]

The link wouldn't open for me and I can only find Meron's letters in their original Hebrew. (My Hebrew is not good enough to translate them).

Nevertheless, I have found some partial quotes, including this one:

We argue that this area of the Mandate on the Land of Israel was divided in 1949 only according to Armistice Lines, which, under the Armistice agreements themselves, had merely military, not political, significance and were not determinative until the final settlement. We go on to say that the agreements themselves were achieved as a temporary measure according to Security Council action based on Article 40 of the United Nations Charter. We also argue that Jordan itself unilaterally annexed the West Bank to the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and that the Armistice Lines no longer exist because the agreements expired due to the war and Arab aggression.

Thus, it appears to me that Judge Meron is making the same argument that I am making. And later, in another quote, he suggests that while the above is true, the international community is not likely to accept it and suggests other legal arguments to support the right of Israeli settlement in the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

I'll remind you of the specific clauses in the Armistice Agreement of 1949:

Article II (2): It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations

Article VI (8,9): The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto

The link won't open for you but you have just managed to find some stuff that " appears " to support your own argument but nothing where he references the application of the 4th GC that supports mine. How convenient is that ?

Not only that you actually never responded at all to the quote I took from his words regarding the advice he gave to not try to settle the land with civilians.

Nor a word of acknowledgement that he stated the Golan , being outside of the Mandate , was absolutely a violation of the 4th GV and settlement being obviously a flagrant violation of it

Seeing as I am nowhere near fair use violation here I will quote some more and you can ask others you are friendly with to verify the accuracy or not. From the link....

Our policy with respect to Jerusalem has been to refrain from getting into “legalistic” arguments and to try to prevent clear contradictions with the Geneva Convention, so as to preclude the question whether the Convention applies or not from arising.

The above is a clear......... the Israeli policy was to steer clear of the 4th GC and avoid getting into " legalistic arguments"

I can provide more links and more quotes because they are from different letters

His conclusion,( Meron) simply stated in the cover note to the opinion, was that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention".

SOAS: Hotung Project: 1967 Meron opinion

try this one

https://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/file48485.pdf

The Geneva Conventions clearly have no relevance to Israeli control of Judea or Samaria since the Conventions only address land of one signatory nation taken in war by another signatory nation, and Jordan had no clear claim to Judea or Samaria, having conquered it in 1948 and its annexation of Judea and Samaria was only recognized by the UK and Pakistan. Since the 4th Geneva Convention only addresses land of one signatory nation taken by another and since Jordan didn't have a clear claim to Judea or Samaria, the 4th Convention is irrelevant.

One might argue that the 4th Convention should apply to the Golan, but immediately after the 1967 war, Israel offered to return the lands it has captured in return for peace, but despite efforts by every Israeli PM, including Netanyahu, Syria refused the offer, so Syria effectively abandoned its claim to the Golan. Today, there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling any part of the land Israel controls an occupation.

 

[Spartacactcus]

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?

Maybe they just decided to honour the agreements they had made

 

[toomuchtime_]

There simply is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling Israeli control of Judea and Samaria an occupation or illegal in any way. Settlements are legal or illegal according to Israeli law and the UN has no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter.

The UN and its SC are the mechanism to facilitate and enforce international law and where international law and a domestic national law clash international law has primacy. You have it the wrong way around.

You are misinformed. The UNSC has jurisdiction only between member states. The UN is, after all, not a world government but just a treaty among member states, and its powers are quite limited. That being the case, no UNSC resolution has any relevance regarding Judea or Samaria.