US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements

[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?

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

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

Any 1948 map will do.

Another unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your comment contains misinformation.

(REFERENCE)

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.

IMPORTANT: →

APPENDIX II.
Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931.
AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
The 23rd day of July, 1931.
Present,
THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.​

(EXCERPT)

1.--(1) Turkish subjects who were habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the sixth day of August, 1924, but ceased to be so habitually resident before the first day of August, 1925, shall be deemed to have become Palestinian citizens, unless before the date of this Order they shall have voluntarily acquired another nationality.

(2) Nevertheless, the High Commissioner shall have power in the case of any person who becomes a Palestinian citizen by virtue of the preceding paragraph and shall make an application to this effect within four years of the date of this Order, to apply to any such person the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1 of the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925, and to extend the period of option provided for therein.​

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

(COMMENT)

You've made this misinformation several times in the past; but, I've not seen the importance of it until now.

FIRST: When speaking of Palestinian Citizenship at any point in time between 1920 and 1948, we are actually speaking of a form of citizenship through the Authority of the British Government as the Administrator of the territory under which the Mandate for Palestine applied. And while it took five years to legally massage the Citizenship Order, by 1931, the British finally got it to read the way they wanted it to read. In this case, the British created and applyed the application and enforcement --- THEN wrote the law to reflect their policy. MAKE NO MISTAKE: The meaning of the phrase "Palestinian Citizenship" was at the discretion of the High Commissioner" and NOT the Treaty of 1924. There was no independent soverienty called "Palestine." That was a emphanism for the "Government of Palestine" - totally administered by the High Commissioner. Between 1922 and 1948 the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

SECOND: When we speak of the Citizenship Order of 1925, we must remember that in 1931, the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, came into effect. And the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendement) Order became the document to be interpreted as the "Principle Order" on the matter of Citizenship in Palestine. Everything prior was to be subordinated or replaced to conform with the intent of the 1931 Order.​

You cannot accurately imply that citizenship in the Territory under the Administration of the Mandate Authority was derivative from any other authority except that of His Majesty's Government.

I have not made an issue of this prior, because it is somewhat difficult to explain; and your previous ascertains could be rebutted through less difficult means. But in this case, it becomes obvious that you failed to grasp the finer points of the issue. {See: • APPENDIX II • Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931• Report for Palestine and Trans-Jordan of the Year 1931• The very last sentence...}



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This again is a very clever - but misleading question/demand and misinformation in terms of the allegation (unsubstantiated). The absence of a map (to your satisfaction) does not negate the truth of the answer to the reality of the time. On 15 May 1948, the State of Israel assumed its Independence. The variance between the territorial sovereignty of May 1948 and today 2019, is an outcome of the numerous confrontations Israel has faced in its bid to defend its sovereignty.

The Arab Nations involved, either directly attack Israel, or moved significant forces up to the borders in apparent preparation for an attack.

Any 1948 map will do.

Another unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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

Any 1948 map will do.

Another unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Show us a substantiated COUNTRY, with Gov't. officials, You can't .
Another unsubstantiated Palestinian talking point

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. ... So, the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Israeli’s and Jews are not necessarily synonymous.

 

[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.

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

They forfeited that by trying to genocide their neighbors, several times. Most migrated there to work from elsewhere anyway, mostly illegally as well. Too bad they lost their murder rampage and got spanked, and remain whining little sociopaths ever since. And, those that lived in the hills, where they hid to avoid paying taxes and getting drafted, considered themselves part of 'Greater Syria', not 'Palestinians', i.e. of aTurkish province. Both Turkey and Syria still exist, so they aren't 'refugees', they're squatters.

 

[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.

Israeli’s and Jews are not necessarily synonymous.

Shrug. Sure. Technically. But when discussing this topic, they are the same for all intents and purposes.

I can think of no instance within this topic where we are discussing Israelis without also meaning Jews.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Did you want to address the elephant in the room as how to tell exactly where the place where Jews are permitted to live ends and the place where Jews are not permitted to live begins.

 

[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?

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

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

Any 1948 map will do.

Another unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Show us a substantiated COUNTRY, with Gov't. officials, You can't .
Another unsubstantiated Palestinian talking point

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. ... So, the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity.

There you go again with Israel's BS talking point about Palestine not existing.

 

[USAF 2023]

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.

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

Any 1948 map will do.

Another unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Show us a substantiated COUNTRY, with Gov't. officials, You can't .
Another unsubstantiated Palestinian talking point

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. ... So, the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity.

There you go again with Israel's BS talking point about Palestine not existing.

There you go again with Palestinian BS talking about “ Palestine “being a country with its own gov’t, etc. etc.
“ Palestine “ did exist; as a territory ( not as an established Country

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

The treaty of Lausanne did not establish Palestine as an independent nation. It does not even mention Palestine. If you are so keen on treaties, why do you ignore all the treaties that helped establish Israel as a nation or its peace treaties with other nations? As for the Armistice Treaties of 1949, Palestine is mentioned as the name of a territory. It was Israeli officials that signed those treaties. Now, according to Oslo, a state called Palestine was established in what is commonly referred to as the "67 lines." But, according to you, Oslo is dead.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The treaty of Lausanne did not establish Palestine as an independent nation. It does not even mention Palestine. If you are so keen on treaties, why do you ignore all the treaties that helped establish Israel as a nation or its peace treaties with other nations? As for the Armistice Treaties of 1949, Palestine is mentioned as the name of a territory. It was Israeli officials that signed those treaties. Now, according to Oslo, a state called Palestine was established in what is commonly referred to as the "67 lines." But, according to you, Oslo is dead.

If you are so keen on treaties, why do you ignore all the treaties that helped establish Israel as a nation

Links?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

The treaty of Lausanne did not establish Palestine as an independent nation. It does not even mention Palestine. If you are so keen on treaties, why do you ignore all the treaties that helped establish Israel as a nation or its peace treaties with other nations? As for the Armistice Treaties of 1949, Palestine is mentioned as the name of a territory. It was Israeli officials that signed those treaties. Now, according to Oslo, a state called Palestine was established in what is commonly referred to as the "67 lines." But, according to you, Oslo is dead.

Btw, do you think it's so easy for supporters of Israel to compromise and be willing to give up the West Bank for a possible peace? The area of the West Bank is called Judea and Samaria in Jewish tradition. It's the place where Jews get their name from. It's the area where our Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried. Most of the important events of the Bible and Jewish history took place "davka" in Judea and Samaria, and not in Israel proper. But if Jews are willing to make this great sacrifice and give up the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, cannot the Arabs who live there do the same?

 

[rylah]

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.
.

I don't know how you come up with that none sense, but it's full of self contradictions.

First you claim the US admin doesn't write international law, then in the same breath mention a change of admin as if having an effect. For that to have any logical basis have to rely on 2 biases:

1.US admin is allowed only one opinion, and a US admin differing that opinion has no legitimate authority on international law, while one that supports the notion has both legitimacy and effect.
2. 'International Law' is a subject of a popular opinion, and the only way it is legitimate is if that law
bans Jews from settling Judea.

Each one to his opinion, but this shows that you associate legitimacy with a certain opinion regardless of actual law.

For that matter, as a sovereign country, the US actually does write international law - that's called treaties, 2 of them are of key importance and are binding both under international law and US Constitution:

1. The Lodge-Fish Resolution - confirms the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine -

• "Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

2. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine:​

• "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine." Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

This is binding International Law, ratified under the US constitution.

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.

Q. How many Arab states can you count in that territory now?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.
.

I don't know how you come up with that none sense, but it's full of self contradictions.

First you claim the US admin doesn't write international law, then in the same breath mention a change of admin as if having an effect. For that to have any logical basis have to rely on 2 biases:

1.US admin is allowed only one opinion, and a US admin differing that opinion has no legitimate authority on international law, while one that supports the notion has both legitimacy and effect.
2. 'International Law' is a subject of a popular opinion, and the only way it is legitimate is if that law bans Jews from settling Judea.

Each one to his opinion, but this shows that you associate legitimacy with a certain opinion regardless of actual law.

For that matter, as a sovereign country, the US actually does write international law - that's called treaties, 2 of them are of key importance and are binding both under international law and US Constitution:

1. The Lodge-Fish Resolution - confirms the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine -

• "Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

2. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine:​

• "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine." Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

This is binding International Law, ratified under the US constitution.

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.

Q. How many Arab states can you count in that territory now?

If the West Bank gains complete independence as "New Palestine", and since Gaza is ruled by Hamas, that makes 3 Arab states (including Jordan), and only one Jewish state, in the area of Israel/Palestine. Still, the greedy Arabs want it all. This is not even counting the 21 other Arab states that the so-called "Palestinians" share a common culture with (like language, dress, food, music, etc.)

 

[rylah]

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.
.

I don't know how you come up with that none sense, but it's full of self contradictions.

First you claim the US admin doesn't write international law, then in the same breath mention a change of admin as if having an effect. For that to have any logical basis have to rely on 2 biases:

1.US admin is allowed only one opinion, and a US admin differing that opinion has no legitimate authority on international law, while one that supports the notion has both legitimacy and effect.
2. 'International Law' is a subject of a popular opinion, and the only way it is legitimate is if that law bans Jews from settling Judea.

Each one to his opinion, but this shows that you associate legitimacy with a certain opinion regardless of actual law.

For that matter, as a sovereign country, the US actually does write international law - that's called treaties, 2 of them are of key importance and are binding both under international law and US Constitution:

1. The Lodge-Fish Resolution - confirms the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine -

• "Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

2. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine:​

• "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine." Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

This is binding International Law, ratified under the US constitution.

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.

Q. How many Arab states can you count in that territory now?

If the West Bank gains complete independence as "New Palestine", and since Gaza is ruled by Hamas, that makes 3 Arab states (including Jordan), and only one Jewish state, in the area of Israel/Palestine. Still, the greedy Arabs want it all. This is not even counting the 21 other Arab states that the so-called "Palestinians" share a common culture with (like language, dress, food, music, etc.)

They want domination from Yemen in Arabia to Morocco in Africa,
and demand return to Spain from which they've been kicked out after invasion.



Surely ambition is not lacking, but they cannot figure out why Allah would let tiny Israel,
be an obstacle for Muslim domination over the entire middle east.

 

[Mindful]

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.

The treaty of Lausanne did not establish Palestine as an independent nation. It does not even mention Palestine. If you are so keen on treaties, why do you ignore all the treaties that helped establish Israel as a nation or its peace treaties with other nations? As for the Armistice Treaties of 1949, Palestine is mentioned as the name of a territory. It was Israeli officials that signed those treaties. Now, according to Oslo, a state called Palestine was established in what is commonly referred to as the "67 lines." But, according to you, Oslo is dead.

I wonder if he knows what a sui generis is.

 

[Mindful]

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.
.

I don't know how you come up with that none sense, but it's full of self contradictions.

First you claim the US admin doesn't write international law, then in the same breath mention a change of admin as if having an effect. For that to have any logical basis have to rely on 2 biases:

1.US admin is allowed only one opinion, and a US admin differing that opinion has no legitimate authority on international law, while one that supports the notion has both legitimacy and effect.
2. 'International Law' is a subject of a popular opinion, and the only way it is legitimate is if that law bans Jews from settling Judea.

Each one to his opinion, but this shows that you associate legitimacy with a certain opinion regardless of actual law.

For that matter, as a sovereign country, the US actually does write international law - that's called treaties, 2 of them are of key importance and are binding both under international law and US Constitution:

1. The Lodge-Fish Resolution - confirms the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine -

• "Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

2. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine:​

• "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine." Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

This is binding International Law, ratified under the US constitution.

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.

Q. How many Arab states can you count in that territory now?

If the West Bank gains complete independence as "New Palestine", and since Gaza is ruled by Hamas, that makes 3 Arab states (including Jordan), and only one Jewish state, in the area of Israel/Palestine. Still, the greedy Arabs want it all. This is not even counting the 21 other Arab states that the so-called "Palestinians" share a common culture with (like language, dress, food, music, etc.)

Like this:

 

[Coyote]

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.

Israeli’s and Jews are not necessarily synonymous.

Shrug. Sure. Technically. But when discussing this topic, they are the same for all intents and purposes.

I can think of no instance within this topic where we are discussing Israelis without also meaning Jews.

I disagree. I think the constant conflating of the two creates a situation where one can not criticize Israel without being seen as attacking all Jews. The two are different and Jews around differ in opinion and support Israeli actions and policies. In addition it further separates non Jewish Israeli nationals who are just as harmed by attacks on Israeli sovereignty as Jewish nationals and who lack the rights and permissions to create settlements in disputed/occupied territory. I DO agree that there are those who conflate the two but they are pretty easy to figure out.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Did you want to address the elephant in the room as how to tell exactly where the place where Jews are permitted to live ends and the place where Jews are not permitted to live begins.

Sure.

Jews who are Israeli nationals should be able to live anywhere Israel holds national soveriegnty.

How about the other ignored elephant?

Where are non Jews permitted to live?