This is how Settlers are taking over East Jerusalem one house at a time

Israel to approve 1,200 settlement homes in West Bank

"Israel is set to approve the construction of more than one thousand settlement units in the occupied West Bank, the defence ministry said."

"Avigdor Lieberman, the defence minister, said he will seek the approval of Israeli authorities on building a further 2,500 units in 20 different locations."

"Peace Now, an Israeli non-governmental organisation that is opposed to settlements, announced that 6,742 construction units were approved in the settlements in 2017, the highest since 2013."

"Settlements are illegal under international law"

Besides East Jerusalem, Israel are gradually taking all of the Palestinian land even though it is illegal to do so.

Israel continue to defy international law and behavioral norms.

The true behavior of a rogue state.

The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:

1. That there is such a thing as "Palestinian land" and a border between that land and Israel.
2. An improper application of GCIV Article 49.
3. Discrimination against a people based on ethnicity/religion.


Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

"The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law"

They're illegal, end of story...


Yes. The same article has been posted a zillion times. It is in error. See my previous post as to the specific errors. Start with the so-called "1967 borders" and the concept of "Palestinian land".

There are no "1967 borders". The Green Line is an Armistice line between Jordan and Israel. It was specifically NOT to be used as a political boundary but only a military boundary. By treaty (international law). It CAN NOT be used as a political boundary. By law.

Also, it ceased to exist when Jordan and Israel signed the peace treaty. It has no further meaning in international law.

What does have meaning is the agreement signed by Israel and the PA. They determine entirely different boundaries. By law. Do you know what they are?

The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

LOL!
 
The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law.

The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing. The Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line, is specifically prohibited from being an international border in the Armistice Agreement made between Israel and Jordan. It is not a political or international border and CAN NOT, by law, become one without the agreement of the Parties involved. Every legal document concerning the status of an international border between Israel and a future Palestine requires that border to be negotiated.

The UN has no authority to impose a solution and a border. The UN has no authority to interfere with a domestic conflict. The UN is specifically prohibited from creating international borders and is prohibited from breaking or ignoring agreements made between States.
 
For a good overview of this, so you know I am not just making it up:



Watch from ~25:00 to ~38:00
 
Israel to approve 1,200 settlement homes in West Bank

"Israel is set to approve the construction of more than one thousand settlement units in the occupied West Bank, the defence ministry said."

"Avigdor Lieberman, the defence minister, said he will seek the approval of Israeli authorities on building a further 2,500 units in 20 different locations."

"Peace Now, an Israeli non-governmental organisation that is opposed to settlements, announced that 6,742 construction units were approved in the settlements in 2017, the highest since 2013."

"Settlements are illegal under international law"

Besides East Jerusalem, Israel are gradually taking all of the Palestinian land even though it is illegal to do so.

Israel continue to defy international law and behavioral norms.

The true behavior of a rogue state.

The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:

1. That there is such a thing as "Palestinian land" and a border between that land and Israel.
2. An improper application of GCIV Article 49.
3. Discrimination against a people based on ethnicity/religion.


Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

"The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law"

They're illegal, end of story...


Yes. The same article has been posted a zillion times. It is in error. See my previous post as to the specific errors. Start with the so-called "1967 borders" and the concept of "Palestinian land".

There are no "1967 borders". The Green Line is an Armistice line between Jordan and Israel. It was specifically NOT to be used as a political boundary but only a military boundary. By treaty (international law). It CAN NOT be used as a political boundary. By law.

Also, it ceased to exist when Jordan and Israel signed the peace treaty. It has no further meaning in international law.

What does have meaning is the agreement signed by Israel and the PA. They determine entirely different boundaries. By law. Do you know what they are?

The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

LOL!

You are just a reflection of how Jews disrespect and view the UN
 
The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law.

The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing. The Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line, is specifically prohibited from being an international border in the Armistice Agreement made between Israel and Jordan. It is not a political or international border and CAN NOT, by law, become one without the agreement of the Parties involved. Every legal document concerning the status of an international border between Israel and a future Palestine requires that border to be negotiated.

The UN has no authority to impose a solution and a border. The UN has no authority to interfere with a domestic conflict. The UN is specifically prohibited from creating international borders and is prohibited from breaking or ignoring agreements made between States.

"No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law."

The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.

Israel haven't complied with any UNSC resolutions passed against it.

It clearly demonstrates how much of a rogue state Israel is and how it is devoid of international norms of behaviour.

I don't need to watch your video because I have made my point, Israel are defying international law by continuing to build settlements in Palestinian territory.

Post any bullsh*t you like the facts are clear.
 
The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:

1. That there is such a thing as "Palestinian land" and a border between that land and Israel.
2. An improper application of GCIV Article 49.
3. Discrimination against a people based on ethnicity/religion.


Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

"The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law"

They're illegal, end of story...


Yes. The same article has been posted a zillion times. It is in error. See my previous post as to the specific errors. Start with the so-called "1967 borders" and the concept of "Palestinian land".

There are no "1967 borders". The Green Line is an Armistice line between Jordan and Israel. It was specifically NOT to be used as a political boundary but only a military boundary. By treaty (international law). It CAN NOT be used as a political boundary. By law.

Also, it ceased to exist when Jordan and Israel signed the peace treaty. It has no further meaning in international law.

What does have meaning is the agreement signed by Israel and the PA. They determine entirely different boundaries. By law. Do you know what they are?

The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

LOL!

You are just a reflection of how Jews disrespect and view the UN

I disrespect the fuck out of the UN.
Not a Jew.
 
The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law.

The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing. The Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line, is specifically prohibited from being an international border in the Armistice Agreement made between Israel and Jordan. It is not a political or international border and CAN NOT, by law, become one without the agreement of the Parties involved. Every legal document concerning the status of an international border between Israel and a future Palestine requires that border to be negotiated.

The UN has no authority to impose a solution and a border. The UN has no authority to interfere with a domestic conflict. The UN is specifically prohibited from creating international borders and is prohibited from breaking or ignoring agreements made between States.

"No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law."

The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.

Israel haven't complied with any UNSC resolutions passed against it.

It clearly demonstrates how much of a rogue state Israel is and how it is devoid of international norms of behaviour.

I don't need to watch your video because I have made my point, Israel are defying international law by continuing to build settlements in Palestinian territory.

Post any bullsh*t you like the facts are clear.


The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

There was no Palestinian territory before 1967, how can Israel occupy something that didn't exist?
 
The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.


UNSC 2334 is a directive based on a false premise. That is my point. The UN has no power to create international law, and indeed, it bound by it. And, in point of fact, UNSC 2334 underlines that very thing. The UN has powers to direct its Members and, yes, the Members are obligated to follow those directions -- but the directives must be within the law itself. The UN can't direct a Member to contravene its agreements with other States, for example. Or to give away territory to another State. The UN can not make directives that contravene international law. Nor can the UN determine international law.

The basic principles of law between States are that States may make agreements with each other and are bound by those agreements and that States have full powers of sovereignty within their own territory.

With that in mind, let's look at two particular Articles of UNSC 2334. Here's the first one:

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

First, let's be clear that there is no such thing as the 4 June 1967 lines. Those are references to the Green Line which was an Armistice Line agreed upon between Israel and the only other Party to the conflict at the time -- Jordan. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated that the Green Line must not be construed as a political border and could not prejudice the final outcome of a peace treaty or agreement.

There are two significant agreements made between Parties through negotiations which did, in fact, change the "1967 lines" and to which the UN is thus obligated, by law, to adhere. The first is the 1994 Treaty of Peace Between Jordan and Israel. The peace treaty ended the conflict between the only two relevant sovereigns who were Parties to the conflict. The termination of the conflict dissolved the Green Line. There ARE no "4 June 1967 lines" anymore in the legal sense.

The second significant agreement was the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Agreement, known as the Oslo Accords. In these Accords, Israel recognized the provisional government of the Arab Palestinian peoples and the two Parties mutually agreed to be bound to new temporary boundaries. These boundaries demarcate Areas A, B and C and Gaza. There are two specific agreements made with respect to these boundaries. The first was that these boundaries were to be temporary and that the final status must be the result of a negotiated agreement (see Article 3 in italics below). The second was that Israel has full civilian (and military) control of Area C. Arab Palestine, as an emerging but not accomplished State, has civil control only over Areas A, B and Gaza.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. (emphasis mine)

In summary the continued use of the term "1967 lines" is a legal fiction (deliberate error). 1. Those lines can not, by law, be a political boundary. 2. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the only other relevant sovereign -- Jordan. 3. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the emerging new sovereign of Arab Palestine as they were replaced by the Oslo Accord boundaries.

Thus for the UNSC to state that settlements are illegal in this resolution:

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;


is a legal fiction. It is a legal error. Jordan does not have sovereignty over any of the territory. And the emerging Arab Palestinians have civil control only over Areas A, B and Gaza, pending a final status agreement. The continued use of these terms are a violation of law.
 
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

"The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law"

They're illegal, end of story...


Yes. The same article has been posted a zillion times. It is in error. See my previous post as to the specific errors. Start with the so-called "1967 borders" and the concept of "Palestinian land".

There are no "1967 borders". The Green Line is an Armistice line between Jordan and Israel. It was specifically NOT to be used as a political boundary but only a military boundary. By treaty (international law). It CAN NOT be used as a political boundary. By law.

Also, it ceased to exist when Jordan and Israel signed the peace treaty. It has no further meaning in international law.

What does have meaning is the agreement signed by Israel and the PA. They determine entirely different boundaries. By law. Do you know what they are?

The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

LOL!

You are just a reflection of how Jews disrespect and view the UN

I disrespect the fuck out of the UN.
Not a Jew.

That doesn't excuse Israel for defying EVERY Security Council resolution every passed against them.

They are outlaws in this world.

And those are the resolutions that passed.

What about the numerous resolutions that the US vetoed but all other states voted for?

It's obvious that Israel have the power over the US using it as its protector at the UN.
 
The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law.

The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing. The Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line, is specifically prohibited from being an international border in the Armistice Agreement made between Israel and Jordan. It is not a political or international border and CAN NOT, by law, become one without the agreement of the Parties involved. Every legal document concerning the status of an international border between Israel and a future Palestine requires that border to be negotiated.

The UN has no authority to impose a solution and a border. The UN has no authority to interfere with a domestic conflict. The UN is specifically prohibited from creating international borders and is prohibited from breaking or ignoring agreements made between States.

"No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law."

The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.

Israel haven't complied with any UNSC resolutions passed against it.

It clearly demonstrates how much of a rogue state Israel is and how it is devoid of international norms of behaviour.

I don't need to watch your video because I have made my point, Israel are defying international law by continuing to build settlements in Palestinian territory.

Post any bullsh*t you like the facts are clear.


The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

There was no Palestinian territory before 1967, how can Israel occupy something that didn't exist?

If we follow your train of thought then we are talking about a 1 state environment where Palestinians are citizens living in Israel and therefore are being discriminated against by Israeli Jews.

(even worse than) apartheid.....

You can't have it both ways. The Palestinians are either a separate race which deserves (at least some of) its territory back to flourish or fail of their own accord or you have a 1 state solution where Palestinians have equal rights to Israeli Jews.

So, which is it?
 
The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.


UNSC 2334 is a directive based on a false premise. That is my point. The UN has no power to create international law, and indeed, it bound by it. And, in point of fact, UNSC 2334 underlines that very thing. The UN has powers to direct its Members and, yes, the Members are obligated to follow those directions -- but the directives must be within the law itself. The UN can't direct a Member to contravene its agreements with other States, for example. Or to give away territory to another State. The UN can not make directives that contravene international law. Nor can the UN determine international law.

The basic principles of law between States are that States may make agreements with each other and are bound by those agreements and that States have full powers of sovereignty within their own territory.

With that in mind, let's look at two particular Articles of UNSC 2334. Here's the first one:

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

First, let's be clear that there is no such thing as the 4 June 1967 lines. Those are references to the Green Line which was an Armistice Line agreed upon between Israel and the only other Party to the conflict at the time -- Jordan. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated that the Green Line must not be construed as a political border and could not prejudice the final outcome of a peace treaty or agreement.

There are two significant agreements made between Parties through negotiations which did, in fact, change the "1967 lines" and to which the UN is thus obligated, by law, to adhere. The first is the 1994 Treaty of Peace Between Jordan and Israel. The peace treaty ended the conflict between the only two relevant sovereigns who were Parties to the conflict. The termination of the conflict dissolved the Green Line. There ARE no "4 June 1967 lines" anymore in the legal sense.

The second significant agreement was the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Agreement, known as the Oslo Accords. In these Accords, Israel recognized the provisional government of the Arab Palestinian peoples and the two Parties mutually agreed to be bound to new temporary boundaries. These boundaries demarcate Areas A, B and C and Gaza. There are two specific agreements made with respect to these boundaries. The first was that these boundaries were to be temporary and that the final status must be the result of a negotiated agreement (see Article 3 in italics below). The second was that Israel has full civilian (and military) control of Area C. Arab Palestine, as an emerging but not accomplished State, has civil control only over Areas A, B and Gaza.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. (emphasis mine)

In summary the continued use of the term "1967 lines" is a legal fiction (deliberate error). 1. Those lines can not, by law, be a political boundary. 2. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the only other relevant sovereign -- Jordan. 3. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the emerging new sovereign of Arab Palestine as they were replaced by the Oslo Accord boundaries.

Thus for the UNSC to state that settlements are illegal in this resolution:

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;


is a legal fiction. It is a legal error. Jordan does not have sovereignty over any of the territory. And the emerging Arab Palestinians have civil control only over Areas A, B and Gaza, pending a final status agreement. The continued use of these terms are a violation of law.

"UNSC 2334 is a directive based on a false premise. That is my point. The UN has no power to create international law, and indeed, it bound by it."

The UN are just reflecting International law, they are not "creating International law"...the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. The Palestinian territories have been occupied since 1967 therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention applies.

"The second was that Israel has full civilian (and military) control of Area C"

Which meant that Palestinians had to lose 60% of the West Bank. Who would have accepted that lopsided agreement?

"In summary the continued use of the term "1967 lines" is a legal fiction (deliberate error). 1. Those lines can not, by law, be a political boundary. 2. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the only other relevant sovereign -- Jordan. 3. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the emerging new sovereign of Arab Palestine as they were replaced by the Oslo Accord boundaries. "

As I said the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. The Palestinian territories have been occupied since 1967 therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention applies.

The Oslo Accord boundaries do not apply as the terms of the agreement have never been fulfilled by Israel. For starters they never withdrew the occupying forces as agreed in Article X.2 and Article XI.2.e.

The Camp David Summit failure is disputable as to who is at fault, but I have my opinion of who was to blame for its failure.

I do appreciate your detailed responses.
 
Yes. The same article has been posted a zillion times. It is in error. See my previous post as to the specific errors. Start with the so-called "1967 borders" and the concept of "Palestinian land".

There are no "1967 borders". The Green Line is an Armistice line between Jordan and Israel. It was specifically NOT to be used as a political boundary but only a military boundary. By treaty (international law). It CAN NOT be used as a political boundary. By law.

Also, it ceased to exist when Jordan and Israel signed the peace treaty. It has no further meaning in international law.

What does have meaning is the agreement signed by Israel and the PA. They determine entirely different boundaries. By law. Do you know what they are?

The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

LOL!

You are just a reflection of how Jews disrespect and view the UN

I disrespect the fuck out of the UN.
Not a Jew.

That doesn't excuse Israel for defying EVERY Security Council resolution every passed against them.

They are outlaws in this world.

And those are the resolutions that passed.

What about the numerous resolutions that the US vetoed but all other states voted for?

It's obvious that Israel have the power over the US using it as its protector at the UN.


What about the numerous resolutions that the US vetoed but all other states voted for?

What about them? Whiners gotta whine.
 
The article just documents UNSC Resolution 2334. It is not "in error" it is fact.

The resolution was from 2016, reinforcing similar previous post 1967 resolutions.

As it is a UNSC resolution it is binding in law.

As Israel have (again) defied a UNSC Resolution then they are breaking the law.

So your statement that "The idea that "settlements are illegal under international law" is a twisted falsehood based on a number of false factors:" is totally incorrect.

At least admit that you are wrong.

And what binding agreement post 2016 between "Israel and the PA" are you referring to specifically?

No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law.

The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing. The Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line, is specifically prohibited from being an international border in the Armistice Agreement made between Israel and Jordan. It is not a political or international border and CAN NOT, by law, become one without the agreement of the Parties involved. Every legal document concerning the status of an international border between Israel and a future Palestine requires that border to be negotiated.

The UN has no authority to impose a solution and a border. The UN has no authority to interfere with a domestic conflict. The UN is specifically prohibited from creating international borders and is prohibited from breaking or ignoring agreements made between States.

"No. The UNSC Resolution 2334 is in error. It contravenes treaties and agreements made between States, which is the source of international law."

The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.

Israel haven't complied with any UNSC resolutions passed against it.

It clearly demonstrates how much of a rogue state Israel is and how it is devoid of international norms of behaviour.

I don't need to watch your video because I have made my point, Israel are defying international law by continuing to build settlements in Palestinian territory.

Post any bullsh*t you like the facts are clear.


The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

There was no Palestinian territory before 1967, how can Israel occupy something that didn't exist?

If we follow your train of thought then we are talking about a 1 state environment where Palestinians are citizens living in Israel and therefore are being discriminated against by Israeli Jews.

(even worse than) apartheid.....

You can't have it both ways. The Palestinians are either a separate race which deserves (at least some of) its territory back to flourish or fail of their own accord or you have a 1 state solution where Palestinians have equal rights to Israeli Jews.

So, which is it?

If we follow your train of thought then we are talking about a 1 state environment where Palestinians are citizens living in Israel

Palestinians don't want to be Israelis.

The Palestinians are either a separate race which deserves (at least some of) its territory back

Back? Please explain when they had any.

to flourish or fail of their own accord

How can they flourish when they spend so much of their (our) money on rockets, tunnels, suicide bombs, pensions for suicide bomber families etc?
 
The resolution is not in error, it is a directive.

I have NEVER heard someone claim that a UN resolution is in error.

"The "1967 borders" do not exist. There is no such thing."

The UN resolution states " settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

It does not talk about "1967 borders" so your argument is irrelevant.


UNSC 2334 is a directive based on a false premise. That is my point. The UN has no power to create international law, and indeed, it bound by it. And, in point of fact, UNSC 2334 underlines that very thing. The UN has powers to direct its Members and, yes, the Members are obligated to follow those directions -- but the directives must be within the law itself. The UN can't direct a Member to contravene its agreements with other States, for example. Or to give away territory to another State. The UN can not make directives that contravene international law. Nor can the UN determine international law.

The basic principles of law between States are that States may make agreements with each other and are bound by those agreements and that States have full powers of sovereignty within their own territory.

With that in mind, let's look at two particular Articles of UNSC 2334. Here's the first one:

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

First, let's be clear that there is no such thing as the 4 June 1967 lines. Those are references to the Green Line which was an Armistice Line agreed upon between Israel and the only other Party to the conflict at the time -- Jordan. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated that the Green Line must not be construed as a political border and could not prejudice the final outcome of a peace treaty or agreement.

There are two significant agreements made between Parties through negotiations which did, in fact, change the "1967 lines" and to which the UN is thus obligated, by law, to adhere. The first is the 1994 Treaty of Peace Between Jordan and Israel. The peace treaty ended the conflict between the only two relevant sovereigns who were Parties to the conflict. The termination of the conflict dissolved the Green Line. There ARE no "4 June 1967 lines" anymore in the legal sense.

The second significant agreement was the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Agreement, known as the Oslo Accords. In these Accords, Israel recognized the provisional government of the Arab Palestinian peoples and the two Parties mutually agreed to be bound to new temporary boundaries. These boundaries demarcate Areas A, B and C and Gaza. There are two specific agreements made with respect to these boundaries. The first was that these boundaries were to be temporary and that the final status must be the result of a negotiated agreement (see Article 3 in italics below). The second was that Israel has full civilian (and military) control of Area C. Arab Palestine, as an emerging but not accomplished State, has civil control only over Areas A, B and Gaza.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. (emphasis mine)

In summary the continued use of the term "1967 lines" is a legal fiction (deliberate error). 1. Those lines can not, by law, be a political boundary. 2. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the only other relevant sovereign -- Jordan. 3. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the emerging new sovereign of Arab Palestine as they were replaced by the Oslo Accord boundaries.

Thus for the UNSC to state that settlements are illegal in this resolution:

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;


is a legal fiction. It is a legal error. Jordan does not have sovereignty over any of the territory. And the emerging Arab Palestinians have civil control only over Areas A, B and Gaza, pending a final status agreement. The continued use of these terms are a violation of law.

"UNSC 2334 is a directive based on a false premise. That is my point. The UN has no power to create international law, and indeed, it bound by it."

The UN are just reflecting International law, they are not "creating International law"...the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. The Palestinian territories have been occupied since 1967 therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention applies.

"The second was that Israel has full civilian (and military) control of Area C"

Which meant that Palestinians had to lose 60% of the West Bank. Who would have accepted that lopsided agreement?

"In summary the continued use of the term "1967 lines" is a legal fiction (deliberate error). 1. Those lines can not, by law, be a political boundary. 2. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the only other relevant sovereign -- Jordan. 3. Those lines no longer exist, by law, with respect to the emerging new sovereign of Arab Palestine as they were replaced by the Oslo Accord boundaries. "

As I said the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. The Palestinian territories have been occupied since 1967 therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention applies.

The Oslo Accord boundaries do not apply as the terms of the agreement have never been fulfilled by Israel. For starters they never withdrew the occupying forces as agreed in Article X.2 and Article XI.2.e.

The Camp David Summit failure is disputable as to who is at fault, but I have my opinion of who was to blame for its failure.

I do appreciate your detailed responses.

"The second was that Israel has full civilian (and military) control of Area C"

Which meant that Palestinians had to lose 60% of the West Bank. Who would have accepted that lopsided agreement?

When they're losing 70%, they'll wish they had accepted 60%. When they're losing 75%...........
 
...the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. The Palestinian territories have been occupied since 1967 therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention applies.

The GCIV, Article 49 (6) has NEVER been used in the way it is used against Israel in any other conflict or occupation. It is not used in this way against Russia in the Crimea; against Indonesia in East Timor; against Morocco in Western Sahara; against Turkey in Cyprus or in any of the other 1/2 dozen cases in the world. It is used in this way ONLY against Israel. That is a discriminatory application of the law. It is an incorrect, non-customary application of the law.

However, this is not my point. My point is that in order for Israel to be occupying territory of another sovereign there has to be another sovereign and there has to be a border between them so we all know which territory is under Israeli control and which territory is under someone else's control.

That border CAN NOT BE the "1967 lines", for all the reasons I have already outlined. So how are we to tell which territory is Israel's and which is someone else's? How are we to tell exactly what territory is "occupied"? Israel can not occupy herself. If the territory is legally under Israel's control (and it is) then there is no occupation and no violation of GCIV 49(6).

Who would have accepted that lopsided agreement?
The government of Palestine, the sole representative of the Arab people of Palestine. They did, in fact, accept an agreement with Israel. An agreement which binds them in international law.
 

Forum List

Back
Top