US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements

[Mindful]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

There never was.

For the umpteenth time:

Let’s talk about the West Bank, that’s where the problem stems from but if you’re a liberal Jew, you often fall for the propaganda of saying “occupied territories” and “illegal settlements” because you don’t know Israeli history and you’re listening to false media controlled by groups who want you to believe something that isn’t true. We hear and read things all the time, even Wikipedia that says,” West Bank has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Six-Day War.” This is factually incorrect. How can you possibly “occupy” your own land?

In 1967, there was no Arab nation or state called Palestine, in fact, there was never any Palestine. During the Six-Day war, Israel took over their own land, the West Bank, from Jordan in self defense after Jordan joined a war launched by Egypt and Syria to destroy the state of Israel. In 1967, United Nations rejected Arab and Soviet attempts to recognize Israel as the aggressor. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day war. This left Israel with secure and recognized boundaries/borders.

What right did Jordan have to invade Israel’s West Bank to begin with? Jordan was the one “occupying” Israel when they had no legal right to be there other than it’s attempt to destroy the state of Israel. Samaria is the territory generally referred to as the West Bank.

Read on, for a history lesson:

There’s NO “Israeli Occupation” In The West Bank

More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points from an Israeli propaganda site.

More non answers from an Israel hater.

Who shovels that crap besides Israel?

You shovel more crap than anyone.

Why bother posting to me?

 

[USAF 2023]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

There never was.

For the umpteenth time:

Let’s talk about the West Bank, that’s where the problem stems from but if you’re a liberal Jew, you often fall for the propaganda of saying “occupied territories” and “illegal settlements” because you don’t know Israeli history and you’re listening to false media controlled by groups who want you to believe something that isn’t true. We hear and read things all the time, even Wikipedia that says,” West Bank has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Six-Day War.” This is factually incorrect. How can you possibly “occupy” your own land?

In 1967, there was no Arab nation or state called Palestine, in fact, there was never any Palestine. During the Six-Day war, Israel took over their own land, the West Bank, from Jordan in self defense after Jordan joined a war launched by Egypt and Syria to destroy the state of Israel. In 1967, United Nations rejected Arab and Soviet attempts to recognize Israel as the aggressor. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day war. This left Israel with secure and recognized boundaries/borders.

What right did Jordan have to invade Israel’s West Bank to begin with? Jordan was the one “occupying” Israel when they had no legal right to be there other than it’s attempt to destroy the state of Israel. Samaria is the territory generally referred to as the West Bank.

Read on, for a history lesson:

There’s NO “Israeli Occupation” In The West Bank

More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points from an Israeli propaganda site.

More non answers from an Israel hater.

At least he’s not referring to the Hasidic Community. . Consider the source.

 

[Picaro]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

That's because there is no such nationality or ethnic group as 'Palestinian'; it's a 1950's fiction fabricated by Egyptian terrorists like Arafat. They're Syrians and their state still exists, has all along.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

You are a dunce, because by saying that you are killing your own cause. Israel proper will never go away. I just came back from there last week. It's a thriving, ambitious and beautiful place. Legally, it's a member state of the United Nations. It's also recognized by virtually every country in the world, with the possible exception of Iran. Your philosophical and useless arguments about Israel residing inside of Palestine exist only inside your own head. Now, if you were smart, instead of saying that the non-existent Palestine can't be divided, you would grab the West Bank for the Arabs living there. You'd reach some kind of compromise so that a "New Palestine" could gain independence on the West Bank. Instead, your position plays right into Netanyahu's hands, so he can thank you. Thanks to your position, what is left of the West Bank will soon be settled and annexed by Israel. Really smart move on your part (sarcasm alert).

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

That's because there is no such nationality or ethnic group as 'Palestinian'; it's a 1950's fiction fabricated by Egyptian terrorists like Arafat. They're Syrians and their state still exists, has all along.

So says Israel.

 

[Picaro]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

That's because there is no such nationality or ethnic group as 'Palestinian'; it's a 1950's fiction fabricated by Egyptian terrorists like Arafat. They're Syrians and their state still exists, has all along.

So says Israel.

So said Yasser Arafat when he made it up, and of course any historian with even a basic knowledge of the region's history.

 

[Shusha]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no legal prohibition which prevents Palestine from being divided into two or more states.

There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

Of course they haven't been opposed to dividing the Ottoman Empire. They've been quite happy, despite their constant refrain of "Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians are all the same." What they've been opposed to is Jews getting a piece of cake.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

It means, at the least, you should end your tirade about Israel's existence, given the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

That's because there is no such nationality or ethnic group as 'Palestinian'; it's a 1950's fiction fabricated by Egyptian terrorists like Arafat. They're Syrians and their state still exists, has all along.

So says Israel.

So said Yasser Arafat when he made it up, and of course any historian with even a basic knowledge of the region's history.

More Israeli propaganda BS. Palestinians have been citizens of Palestine since 1924.

 

[Hollie]

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states.

There is no Palestinian state. It's looking as if there never will be.

That's because there is no such nationality or ethnic group as 'Palestinian'; it's a 1950's fiction fabricated by Egyptian terrorists like Arafat. They're Syrians and their state still exists, has all along.

So says Israel.

So said Yasser Arafat when he made it up, and of course any historian with even a basic knowledge of the region's history.

More Israeli propaganda BS. Palestinians have been citizens of Palestine since 1924.

Ah, back in that Cul-de-sac of the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the "country of Pal'istan".

And around and around you go.

 

[Shusha]

Where, inside Palestine, would any Israeli settlement be legal?

Well, the supposed illegality in Israel's settlements arises from (mis)interprerations GCIV Article 49 claiming that an Occupying Power must not transfer its citizens from its own territory to another territory. You MUST agree that this can not apply to Palestine, since Palestine is all one territory.

Israel crossed that border in 1948.

Interesting. Israel crossed that border from where? Where was the State of Israel established? Where was its territory? Who were its citizens? What was their government? On what date did they "cross the border"?


If you want to argue that ALL Israeli (Jewish) settlements are illegal, you must be using another point of international law to make this claim. Feel free to name what it is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

You are a dunce, because by saying that you are killing your own cause. Israel proper will never go away. I just came back from there last week. It's a thriving, ambitious and beautiful place. Legally, it's a member state of the United Nations. It's also recognized by virtually every country in the world, with the possible exception of Iran. Your philosophical and useless arguments about Israel residing inside of Palestine exist only inside your own head. Now, if you were smart, instead of saying that the non-existent Palestine can't be divided, you would grab the West Bank for the Arabs living there. You'd reach some kind of compromise so that a "New Palestine" could gain independence on the West Bank. Instead, your position plays right into Netanyahu's hands, so he can thank you. Thanks to your position, what is left of the West Bank will soon be settled and annexed by Israel. Really smart move on your part (sarcasm alert).

Nice rant, but you haven't proven me wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where, inside Palestine, would any Israeli settlement be legal?

Well, the supposed illegality in Israel's settlements arises from (mis)interprerations GCIV Article 49 claiming that an Occupying Power must not transfer its citizens from its own territory to another territory. You MUST agree that this can not apply to Palestine, since Palestine is all one territory.

Israel crossed that border in 1948.

Interesting. Israel crossed that border from where? Where was the State of Israel established? Where was its territory? Who were its citizens? What was their government? On what date did they "cross the border"?


If you want to argue that ALL Israeli (Jewish) settlements are illegal, you must be using another point of international law to make this claim. Feel free to name what it is.

Where was its territory?

Good question. Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?

 

[Hollie]

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

You are a dunce, because by saying that you are killing your own cause. Israel proper will never go away. I just came back from there last week. It's a thriving, ambitious and beautiful place. Legally, it's a member state of the United Nations. It's also recognized by virtually every country in the world, with the possible exception of Iran. Your philosophical and useless arguments about Israel residing inside of Palestine exist only inside your own head. Now, if you were smart, instead of saying that the non-existent Palestine can't be divided, you would grab the West Bank for the Arabs living there. You'd reach some kind of compromise so that a "New Palestine" could gain independence on the West Bank. Instead, your position plays right into Netanyahu's hands, so he can thank you. Thanks to your position, what is left of the West Bank will soon be settled and annexed by Israel. Really smart move on your part (sarcasm alert).

Nice rant, but you haven't proven me wrong.

Of course he did. You havent proven he didn't.

That was easy.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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.

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.

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.

Jordan FORMALLY annexed it. From what I have read, nobody seemed to care or yell to the U.N. about " International Law" or " occupation"

According to " International Law" the Israelis were to have access to their Holy Sites but were of course denied. "
Maybe YOU can tell us why the UN " PEACEKEEPERS" deliberately left just prior to the War since you're such a expert on " International Law"

Genocide and ethnic cleansing can always be rationalized, who knows better than U.S.?

 

[Shusha]

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it.

Well, the US, in this case, is not writing international law, but interpreting it. The interpretation (opinion) that Israeli settlements (places where Jews live) in the "West Bank" are illegal depends on a legal definition of exactly what territory is the "West Bank" and what territory is not the "West Bank".

The legal problem is that there is no such demarcation line, thus no way to tell where, or where not, Israelis (Jews) are permitted to live.

Unless one accepts Oslo, in which case there are no Israeli settlements (Jews) in Arab territories.

 

[USAF 2023]

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

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.

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.



Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.

Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?

Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.

What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution.

There is no legal requirement that Palestine be divided into two states. There is a lot of hoopla about dividing Palestine but the Palestinians have been opposed to that foreign idea since 1937.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

What does that mean?

You are a dunce, because by saying that you are killing your own cause. Israel proper will never go away. I just came back from there last week. It's a thriving, ambitious and beautiful place. Legally, it's a member state of the United Nations. It's also recognized by virtually every country in the world, with the possible exception of Iran. Your philosophical and useless arguments about Israel residing inside of Palestine exist only inside your own head. Now, if you were smart, instead of saying that the non-existent Palestine can't be divided, you would grab the West Bank for the Arabs living there. You'd reach some kind of compromise so that a "New Palestine" could gain independence on the West Bank. Instead, your position plays right into Netanyahu's hands, so he can thank you. Thanks to your position, what is left of the West Bank will soon be settled and annexed by Israel. Really smart move on your part (sarcasm alert).

Nice rant, but you haven't proven me wrong.

Sorry, but we have. Israel was legally recognized May 14, 1948 whether you accept it or not
Regarding “ Right of Return “ the Resolution clearly states “ live in peace with your neighbors”
Going back to borders that were never recognized before; not allowing Jews to their Holy Sites ( pre 1967) isn’t exactly “ living in peace”
When asked why Israel should accept the pre 67 denial there is no response
You have nothing to offer regarding the above

This has nothing to do with the above post but don’t you think you should have done some Research to find out WHY such Religious Jews are opposed to Israel’s existence instead of posting stupid You Tube Video’s with them agreeing with Hamas?

 

[USAF 2023]

Where, inside Palestine, would any Israeli settlement be legal?

Well, the supposed illegality in Israel's settlements arises from (mis)interprerations GCIV Article 49 claiming that an Occupying Power must not transfer its citizens from its own territory to another territory. You MUST agree that this can not apply to Palestine, since Palestine is all one territory.

Israel crossed that border in 1948.

Interesting. Israel crossed that border from where? Where was the State of Israel established? Where was its territory? Who were its citizens? What was their government? On what date did they "cross the border"?


If you want to argue that ALL Israeli (Jewish) settlements are illegal, you must be using another point of international law to make this claim. Feel free to name what it is.

Where was its territory?

Good question. Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?

Before or after the LEGAL U.N. Resolution??

“ Palestine “ was never a country; it was a territory

 

[Shusha]

Where, inside Palestine, would any Israeli settlement be legal?

Well, the supposed illegality in Israel's settlements arises from (mis)interprerations GCIV Article 49 claiming that an Occupying Power must not transfer its citizens from its own territory to another territory. You MUST agree that this can not apply to Palestine, since Palestine is all one territory.

Israel crossed that border in 1948.

Interesting. Israel crossed that border from where? Where was the State of Israel established? Where was its territory? Who were its citizens? What was their government? On what date did they "cross the border"?


If you want to argue that ALL Israeli (Jewish) settlements are illegal, you must be using another point of international law to make this claim. Feel free to name what it is.

Where was its territory?

Good question. Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?

And THIS only shows how ridiculous your little legal hopscotch is.

You go from "settlements are illegal" to ALL Israeli presence is illegal to Israel is illegal to Israel doesn't exist. Its a mental mind game that has absolutely not foundation in any sort of law.


But even if we followed your silly game to try to force internal consistency on your own ridiculousness: If Israel does not exist as a State; if it has no territory and no citizens then it can not cannot possibly transfer its citizens from its territory to another's. It can not even HAVE illegal settlements. It can not occupy another's territory.

 

[Shusha]

Good question. Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?

You are claiming Israel "crossed Palestine's borders.'

Do you have a 1948 map of Israel and its territorial borders outside "Palestine"?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Where, inside Palestine, would any Israeli settlement be legal?

Well, the supposed illegality in Israel's settlements arises from (mis)interprerations GCIV Article 49 claiming that an Occupying Power must not transfer its citizens from its own territory to another territory. You MUST agree that this can not apply to Palestine, since Palestine is all one territory.

Israel crossed that border in 1948.

Interesting. Israel crossed that border from where? Where was the State of Israel established? Where was its territory? Who were its citizens? What was their government? On what date did they "cross the border"?


If you want to argue that ALL Israeli (Jewish) settlements are illegal, you must be using another point of international law to make this claim. Feel free to name what it is.

Where was its territory?

Good question. Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?

Before or after the LEGAL U.N. Resolution??

“ Palestine “ was never a country; it was a territory

It is an open air prison and population control weapons testing site. Your power structure is adapting the approach and bracing for what is coming.