Settlements

[Indeependent]

Because you always wait for the attacker to stab you before you stab him.

You're the one who said 'after they [Arabs] attack'. But I understand how difficult it is to cling to victimhood.

Victimhood?
Israel kicked major non-Jewish ass...that's hardly victim hood.
You're the one claiming that all of those mighty Arab nations were the victims.
You're such a clown.

 

[abi]

They are FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 14 to zip!

Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

 

[Shusha]

There is no way to establish where it is illegal to build because borders are subject to negotiation and do not yet exist. There is no defined border. Therefore any designation of "Palestinian territory" is a legal falsehood.

The last legal documents, agreed upon by Arab Palestine, give Israel the legal right to administer Area C. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about Israel administering Area C.

 

[Shusha]

If the US can not designate Jerusalem as part of Israel because it is subject to negotiation, the UN can't designate territory as "Palestinian land" because it is subject to negotiation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

abi, the point of this thread is to have a thoughtful, considered conversation about the conflict, and not to carry on with the same old re-hashing of soundbites.

Let's see if you can keep up.

From a legal perspective: In which territory are Jewish people prohibited from living? Which legal instrument provides this prohibition? What are the boundaries of this prohibition?

In which territories are Arab people prohibited from living?

From a moral/solutions perspective: where should Jews be prohibited from living? Where should Arabs be prohibited from living?

Abi thinks like all Muslims that Israel should not exist in his opinion the entire middle easy should be Arab and Muslim.

 

[abi]

There is no way to establish where it is illegal to build because borders are subject to negotiation and do not yet exist. There is no defined border. Therefore any designation of "Palestinian territory" is a legal falsehood.

The last legal documents, agreed upon by Arab Palestine, give Israel the legal right to administer Area C. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about Israel administering Area C.

Any land taken in war is a war crime with no statute of limitations. Start there.

 

[Indeependent]

There is no way to establish where it is illegal to build because borders are subject to negotiation and do not yet exist. There is no defined border. Therefore any designation of "Palestinian territory" is a legal falsehood.

The last legal documents, agreed upon by Arab Palestine, give Israel the legal right to administer Area C. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about Israel administering Area C.

Any land taken in war is a war crime with no statute of limitations. Start there.

So Israel belongs to the descendants of Shem...otherwise known as The Jews.
Killing you, ain't it?

 

[Coyote]

The problem with this particular disputed land is this: it is the hoped for territory of another state.

Well, no. The problem is that it is hoped for by both states. Hence the dispute part of disputed.

It might be helpful to describe what, exactly, is "disputed". Is Tel Aviv disputed? Gaza? Jerusalem? Ramallah? Hebron? Nabi Saleh? Umm al Fahm? Susya? Nablus? Bethlehem? What parts of the territory are disputed? Precision is important here. I see Area C and East Jerusalem as the two key disputed areas. Agree or disagree?

I'll use this map as a reference - Area C and Jerusalem (at least east Jerusalem) are disputed.

It was territory taken in war.

Sure. But was it territory belonging to Israel taken by Jordan and subsequently recovered? Or territory belonging to Jordan taken by Israel? (Hint: Its door #1 - Jordan never had any valid claim past its own borders).

See, legally, either way, that war is over. Israel and Jordan and Egypt settled their differences by treaty (aka international law). Jordan renounced the territory. Egypt renounced the territory. That entire conflict is actually resolved. Finished. No longer part of the equation.

What we are dealing with here is the internal, domestic, civil conflict between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians (Israelis). There has never been a defined border between these two conflicting entities. No land has been taken from either because, at this point, each claims the entire piece. The only legislation which creates borders of claim is the one mutually signed at Oslo. Oslo demands that the final borders be negotiated and not imparted. So....it is a legal error to claim that Israel took land in war.

I disagree with this statement - you only naming state players in the conflict. The Palestinians are not state players. The conflict most certainly is not over for them. There has been no surrender nor peace agreement and who's land it is remains in contention.

The second assertion I absolutely disagree with. An ":internal domestic civil conflict" implies some unity at some point. Israel has never fully taken legal ownership - because that would mean the resident population would have full Israeli citizenship status and associated rights. They clearly don't and in many cases remain subject to Israeli military law. To argue that the land was not taken in war is frankly dishonest. If Oslo demands that final borders be NEGOTIATED and not imparted...then what about Jerusalem?

And as settlements expand - the possibilitiy of a contiguous land available for a state decreases resulting in a swiss cheese affair that is impossible to govern.

Only if you believe that Arab Palestine cannot possibly incorporate any Jewish people into their State. Otherwise it looks just exactly like Israel looks -- a place where both Jews and Arabs live, without consideration of which is sovereign. How many Jews does it take to make an Arab State not viable? 5? 10? 100? 1%? 10%? 20%? How many Arabs does it take to make a Jewish State not viable? 5? 10? 100? 1%? 10%? 20%?

Its not a flood. The land IS actually contiguous. The borders can be placed anywhere. As long as Arab Palestine is willing to consider some Jewish minority. If Arab Palestine is not willing to accept ANY Jewish minority, onc has to ask why Israel is expected to accept an Arab minority.

We've had this discussion before, and it's the problem of realistic vs idealistic. YES it would be ideal if what you say could happen. I would be all for it. But there are several points to consider. One is TRUST. There is a helluva lack of it on both sides and justifiably. From the Palestinian side - what they see is an erosion of any possible future state with the settlements, and it is pretty far fetched to imagine (or trust) that Israel is going to let them become part of a future Palestinian state. How would you convince them that there WOULD be a contiguous state, irregardless of the settlements?

Secondly security (and trust) - both sides do not trust the other for their security. How would you convince Israeli Jews that their future (and lives and children) would be secure in an Arab Palestine?

IF you get beyond that - yes, both sides should accept a minority of the other. But the continuous building of settlements isn't going to help the situation - all it looks like is that Israel has no intention of abiding by a two state solution and given the sloth like pace of the Netanyahu administration in any effort towards peace, I think they have a point - Netanyahu's slowly insuring (with "facts on the ground") that there will not be two states. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

Either Israel needs to man up and make a decision and take the territory (AND it's people) into it's state - or stop settlements until the peace process is concluded.

I am ALL in for Israel manning up and taking the territory that it wishes to take and gifting the CRAP out of the Arabs who end up on the Israeli side of the unilaterally decided border. And treating those Arabs on the other side of the line like foreigners.

But, I'm curious as to what you mean by "stop settlements". Please clarify.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shusha]

There is no way to establish where it is illegal to build because borders are subject to negotiation and do not yet exist. There is no defined border. Therefore any designation of "Palestinian territory" is a legal falsehood.

The last legal documents, agreed upon by Arab Palestine, give Israel the legal right to administer Area C. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about Israel administering Area C.

Any land taken in war is a war crime with no statute of limitations. Start there.

The only land taken in war (conquest) was taken in war from the indigenous Jewish peoples nearly three thousand years ago. But I am all for giving it back.

What war were you talking about?

 

[abi]

Area C and Jerusalem (at least east Jerusalem) are disputed.

Only by zionists. The rest of the world is nearly unanimous.

To argue that the land was not taken in war is frankly dishonest.

Fully agree here.

 

[Indeependent]

Area C and Jerusalem (at least east Jerusalem) are disputed.

Only by zionists. The rest of the world is nearly unanimous.

To argue that the land was not taken in war is frankly dishonest.

Fully agree here.

Yeah, those Europeans in the first millennia were really pissed that the Jews were planning to take over the Land of Israel after being nearly annihilated!
Any other Muslim bullshit you'd like to feed us?

 

[Shusha]

The rest of the world is nearly unanimous.

The "world" does NOT get to abrogate treaties made by the concerned Parties. Treaties are the BASIS for international relations and law. The moment treaties are subject to a popularity vote is when law becomes nothing but a farce.

 

[abi]

The "world" does NOT get to abrogate treaties made by the concerned Parties. Treaties are the BASIS for international relations and law. The moment treaties are subject to a popularity vote is when law becomes nothing but a farce.

Says the losers. The world was almost unanimous, just the facts.

 

[Indeependent]

The "world" does NOT get to abrogate treaties made by the concerned Parties. Treaties are the BASIS for international relations and law. The moment treaties are subject to a popularity vote is when law becomes nothing but a farce.

Says the losers. The world was almost unanimous, just the facts.

Thankfully there are still 2 nations that aren't afraid of your fellow homicide bombers.

 

[Shusha]

I'll use this map as a reference - Area C and Jerusalem (at least east Jerusalem) are disputed.

We agree. Until the dispute is resolved, Israel has full administration over the territory.

I disagree with this statement - you only naming state players in the conflict. The Palestinians are not state players.

Bingo. Exactly. This is WHY it is a civil war and not a war between States or sovereigns. All conditions of war between States and sovereigns have ENDED. There is no more conflict between States. This leaves the conflict as being between two distinct peoples inside the international borders. Thus, its a civil war.

 

[Shusha]

The "world" does NOT get to abrogate treaties made by the concerned Parties. Treaties are the BASIS for international relations and law. The moment treaties are subject to a popularity vote is when law becomes nothing but a farce.

Says the losers. The world was almost unanimous, just the facts.

It doesn't matter if "the world" is unanimous. "The world" does not have the legal right to abrogate treaties.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Area C and Jerusalem (at least east Jerusalem) are disputed.

Only by zionists. The rest of the world is nearly unanimous.

To argue that the land was not taken in war is frankly dishonest.

Fully agree here.

Israel is not going away no matter how much you wish for it. And there are NUMEROUS incidents since WW2 where a conquering country KEPT the land.

 

[abi]

This is WHY it is a civil war and not a war between States or sovereigns.

Civil wars do not occur between armies from different continents. This is simply known by definition

Now go study!

 

[abi]

It doesn't matter if "the world" is unanimous. "The world" does not have the legal right to abrogate treaties.

The world now must grow a pair and end this once and for all.

 

[Indeependent]

It doesn't matter if "the world" is unanimous. "The world" does not have the legal right to abrogate treaties.

The world now must grow a pair and end this once and for all.

Yes...The US stops funding everyone; even Israel.