What's new

US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
57,477
Reaction score
2,310
Points
1,815
Omar faints. Taliban starts to foam from the mouth...all is good!

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announces major change to US policy, recognizes Israeli courts' authority on settlements.

:290968001256257790-final:

It's funny'
Omar faints. Taliban starts to foam from the mouth...all is good!

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announces major change to US policy, recognizes Israeli courts' authority on settlements.

:290968001256257790-final:

Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted yet when Israel obtained those territories after the Arabs initiated the 67 War it became " occupied"

The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank. It was FORMALLY annexed April 24, 1950
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
35,570
Reaction score
7,260
Points
1,270
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.

It's funny'

Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted yet when Israel obtained those territories after the Arabs initiated the 67 War it became " occupied"

The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank. It was FORMALLY annexed April 24, 1950
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
Rubbish!

So much so, I'm not going to comment on it.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
57,477
Reaction score
2,310
Points
1,815
It's funny'
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted yet when Israel obtained those territories after the Arabs initiated the 67 War it became " occupied"

The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank. It was FORMALLY annexed April 24, 1950
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
Rubbish!

So much so, I'm not going to comment on it.
Indeed, there is nothing for you to say.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
35,570
Reaction score
7,260
Points
1,270
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
Rubbish!

So much so, I'm not going to comment on it.
Indeed, there is nothing for you to say.
The most intelligent thing you've said yet.

:777:
 

ForeverYoung436

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,198
Points
245

It's funny'

Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted yet when Israel obtained those territories after the Arabs initiated the 67 War it became " occupied"

The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank. It was FORMALLY annexed April 24, 1950
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
We know that's what you wish for--that there be no Israel--but your wet dreams will never come true.
 

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,830
Points
280
Tinmore wants another totalitarian, jihadist state. Apparently, the world doesn't have enough already.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
35,570
Reaction score
7,260
Points
1,270
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in U.S. Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of U.S. law since 1996. There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli settlements has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week. The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2234 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo's statement on settlements is a diplomatic turning point - CarolineGlick.com
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,293
Reaction score
3,052
Points
1,115

It's funny'

Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted yet when Israel obtained those territories after the Arabs initiated the 67 War it became " occupied"

The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank. It was FORMALLY annexed April 24, 1950
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
That makes no sense.

Carry on, Khomeini mouthpiece.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
57,477
Reaction score
2,310
Points
1,815
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in U.S. Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of U.S. law since 1996. There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli settlements has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week. The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2234 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo's statement on settlements is a diplomatic turning point - CarolineGlick.com
The ICC, the UN Security Council, and almost everybody else in the world say that the settlements are illegal. This doofus lives in La La Land.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,293
Reaction score
3,052
Points
1,115
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in U.S. Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of U.S. law since 1996. There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli settlements has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week. The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2234 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo's statement on settlements is a diplomatic turning point - CarolineGlick.com
The ICC, the UN Security Council, and almost everybody else in the world say that the settlements are illegal. This doofus lives in La La Land.
Oslo is dead, remember?
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
57,477
Reaction score
2,310
Points
1,815
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in U.S. Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of U.S. law since 1996. There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli settlements has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week. The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2234 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo's statement on settlements is a diplomatic turning point - CarolineGlick.com
The ICC, the UN Security Council, and almost everybody else in the world say that the settlements are illegal. This doofus lives in La La Land.
Oslo is dead, remember?
Indeed, it was stillborn.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
35,570
Reaction score
7,260
Points
1,270
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in U.S. Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of U.S. law since 1996. There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli settlements has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week. The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2234 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo's statement on settlements is a diplomatic turning point - CarolineGlick.com
The ICC, the UN Security Council, and almost everybody else in the world say that the settlements are illegal. This doofus lives in La La Land.

So almost everybody else in the world says so?

Wow. Who knew?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,293
Reaction score
3,052
Points
1,115
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in U.S. Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of U.S. law since 1996. There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli settlements has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week. The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2234 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo's statement on settlements is a diplomatic turning point - CarolineGlick.com
The ICC, the UN Security Council, and almost everybody else in the world say that the settlements are illegal. This doofus lives in La La Land.
Oslo is dead, remember?
Indeed, it was stillborn.
Indeed. The precepts hurt your feelings.

Indeed. Opinions that settlements are illegal are mere opinion.
 

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
385
Points
160
Tinmore wants another totalitarian, jihadist state. Apparently, the world doesn't have enough already.
I think it's more than that.

He hates Israel.
Agree. Notice how he keeps spouting that Hamas and the Hasidic Community both agree that Israel does not have the Right to exist inferring its for the same reason?

Talk about desperation
 

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
385
Points
160

It's funny'

Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted yet when Israel obtained those territories after the Arabs initiated the 67 War it became " occupied"

The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[1][2] During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus.[3] At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank. It was FORMALLY annexed April 24, 1950
Tell us why Jordanian FORMAL annexation of the West Bank and E, Jerusalem was accepted
It wasn't. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The rest of the world said it was an occupation.

Trump and his swamp is not the arbiter of international law.
Who is then?

And is there such a thing as "international law"?

Hasn't done much for illegally occupied Northern Cyprus.
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
Israel never gave a rat's ass about international law. It is the Wild West of the middle east.

If Israel followed the law, there would be no Israel.
FINALLY ! You don’t believe in “ 67 Borders” or the “ Two State Solution”
The U.N. didn’t follow “ International Law” on May 14, 1948?
Know what? The HASIDIC Community agrees !!
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
16,252
Reaction score
2,511
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
※→ Mindful, et al,

Well, the legitimacy of International Law is really based on who practices it and who are bound by it.

And is there such a thing as "international law"?
Exactly, I don't see these "international law!" people screaming about Russia that is *STILL* in the Ukraine...... because it's those same people spouting International law, that are being supported by Russia.
(COMMENT)

◈ On the matter of International Law:
◈ Sometimes, the Rule of Law (RoL) does not work. With respect to the Crimea (Russian Federation, formerly southern Ukraine), → the people of the peninsula might find it the application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) detrimental to the relationship with the Russian Federation proper. The Crimeans knew that, no matter what the outcome, no RoL would be enforceable even if the ICJ ruled against The Russian Federation.

Much of International Law is segmented and selectively enforced. It may not suppose to be that way, but that is the way it is (real world).

Who is the arbiter of international law? And why should anyone recognize their authority on anything?
(COMMENT)

There are more than a dozen International Courts using different aspects of International Law.


Most Respectfully,
R
Right, I'm not asking you if there are international courts, or if they are using international law.

I'm asking you why do we care? We are a sovereign nation. Why should we care about international law? This is our nation. The whole reason this nation even exists, was to get away from people in a far away land, dictating to us.

So based on who, or what authority, do we care about international law? Who gave them this authority, and why would we care what they think?

Much of International Law is segmented and selectively enforced.


Well yes, of course it is.

Which is another reason, I don't see international law a legitimate authority on anything. It's only enforced, which those that wish it to be enforced are strong, and those that will have it enforced on them, are weak.

That's not a moral authority. That is simply tyranny enshrined by words on paper. This is like a brutal dictator, setting up a rigged election, to show the world that his people really want him.

Let's get a bunch of nations together, and tell smaller less capable nations what to do, and we'll put a bunch of words on paper to justify us dictating to them.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,618
Reaction score
2,388
Points
280
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
※→ Andylusion, et al,

Yes, you are asking a very hard question. And I'm not sure that I know just how to answer it. In fact, I'm not sure the combined legal systems know how to answer it. BUT I'll try from a layman's point-of-view.

Which is another reason, I don't see international law a legitimate authority on anything. It's only enforced, which those that wish it to be enforced are strong, and those that will have it enforced on them, are weak.
(COMMENT)

First, let me say that I don't believe that the world bodies have a concensuson what the overall Question of Real-World Conceptual Compatibility between nations has a grand theory that we all agree upon. Clearly, some types of International Law work bettter than others and go vertually unchallenged. And example of a well-defined and established laws that seems to work relatively well is "Admiralty Law." But that Rule of Law is largely hammered out because of the outcomes relating to commercial liability (monetary pay-outs) and salvage rights (a dollar driven value). Similarly, international banking laws have to be heavily compliance driven due to the vast sums of wealth that are managed and transferred in the conduct of the global economy. In these examples I've used (so far), there is no moral judgment or fairness issues involved. There is no gambling or mental paradox involved. The same rules apply every time; much like the rules the house uses in playing "Black Jack "hit on 16 and stay on 17." There is no dilemma. It does not care if you are deserving entity or not.

I'm asking you why do we care? We are a sovereign nation. Why should we care about international law?
(COMMENT)

The theory of international law falls into chaos when it is rooted in the foundations of morality, just causes and political implications. The realm of morality, just causes and political implications are subjective; Las Vegas Rules are not.


So based on who, or what authority, do we care about international law? Who gave them this authority, and why would we care what they think?
(COMMENT)

Well, the short answer on matters that are morally, philospofically, or justice driven doesn't care. Those parameters change.

international law says: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."

Right, I'm not asking you if there are international courts, or if they are using international law.

I'm asking you why do we care? We are a sovereign nation. Why should we care about international law? This is our nation. The whole reason this nation even exists --- was to get away from people in a faraway land, dictating to us.
(COMMENT)

We should not care about matters of a "domestic" nature (your sovereign authority question).


Most Respectfully,
R
 

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,181
Reaction score
1,730
Points
290
The ICC, the UN Security Council, and almost everybody else in the world say that the settlements are illegal. This doofus lives in La La Land.
You CAN'T POSSIBLY agree that Jewish settlements are illegal. To do so would contradict and undermine your entire argument concerning the unity of "Palestine". Remember there are no "borders" within "Palestine" and therefore no legal distinction between a territory where Israelis (Jews) are permitted to live and a territory where Israelis (Jews) are not permitted to live. There is no way to determine WHERE Jewish settlements would be legal or illegal.
 
Last edited:

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top