'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here'

[Shaarona]

Sounds to me like it works fine. Do you think the haters can be convinced?

'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here' - Telegraph


Excerpt:

So which is it? A symbol of repression, as Oxfam suggests, or a conduit for peace, as Ms Johansson argues? The Telegraph paid a visit to find out.

The plant employs roughly 500 Palestinians from the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 450 Arab Israelis and 350 Jewish Israelis. It makes gadgets for creating home-made fizzy drinks.

For many of the Palestinians, working there involves negotiating a series of complex and time-consuming checkpoints between the factory and their homes in nearby Nablus and Hebron. But the high rates of unemployment in the West Bank made it worth it, they said.

“We have no problems working here”, said one Palestinian employee, as others nodded in agreement. “The relations with the others are good, the pay is fine. But the way home is sometimes very long”.

One outside contractor who regularly visited the plant added: “It’s rare to see a company like this. Everyone sits together, works together. If you ask me, there should be a thousand SodaStreams in this area.”

Two key factors drive around 25,000 Palestinians employees to work in the settlements. The average daily wage earned by Palestinian workers in Israel and the settlements was more than double that of the West Bank private sector in 2012, according to a report by the International Labour Organisation. Unemployment rises to over 40 percent amongst 20-24 year olds in the West Bank.

However, critics say the jobs generated do not justify the settlement itself at Maale Adumim, which they say was created in the 1970s as an outpost into Palestinian territory to ensure access from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley.

Earlier this week, SodaStream’s chief executive, Daniel Birnbaum, said he would “never” have built the plant there in the first place had he known the controversy it might attract. But despite it being a “pain the ass”, he said he had no intentions to shut it.

“We will not throw our employees under the bus to promote anyone’s political agenda,” he said.

Yonah Lloyd, president of SodaStream, describes the atmosphere in the plant as “very harmonious”.

“We believe what we’ve accomplished by bringing together all kinds of people to work together, break bread together at lunch, and at company events at the beach, is a dream,” he told The Telegraph.

Several of the SodaStream employees interviewed point to the schism between politics and their everyday lives in terms of relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

“It’s only segregated at the top level, between the Israeli and the Palestinian governments”, says an Arab cook from East Jerusalem working at the SodaStream canteen.

“The politicians, they make all kinds of a mess between Jews and Arabs. But the people here, the Palestinians and Israelis, they are working together, they talk to each other, there’s no problem. But at the political level, there are many issues.”

The cook, who asked not to be named, refers to the case of Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi.

“You know the story of one Israeli and one Palestinian, both from Jerusalem, both cooks?", he asked.

"They never met in Jerusalem, but both went to London, both started making falafel and humous, met each other and became partners. It’s possible in London but difficult here, because of the politicians”, the cook says.

A Palestinian worker from East Jerusalem is waiting at the bus stop, talking into his mobile phone. “I like working here. The relations between people are good, what can I say?”

 

[50_RiaL]

'My hope, my prayer, my belief, and my responsibility at SodaStream is that we will fulfill the prophecy from the book of Isaiah: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war anymore. Instead of learning war, let them learn how to make a sodamaker.' "
-- Daniel Birnbaum, CEO of SodaStream

 

[Victory67]

Very odd that someone who seems to care about integration and understanding between peoples would build a factory in Occupied Territory on possibly stolen land.

 

[Mr. H.]

Jews are over their heads with fizzy water. And they don't know what the **** they are doing with natural gas. They've finally met their match.

How many thumbs can you fit up a Jew's ass?

Just one, but it would have to be a big one.

 

[Phoenall]

Sounds to me like it works fine. Do you think the haters can be convinced?

'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here' - Telegraph


Excerpt:

So which is it? A symbol of repression, as Oxfam suggests, or a conduit for peace, as Ms Johansson argues? The Telegraph paid a visit to find out.

The plant employs roughly 500 Palestinians from the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 450 Arab Israelis and 350 Jewish Israelis. It makes gadgets for creating home-made fizzy drinks.

For many of the Palestinians, working there involves negotiating a series of complex and time-consuming checkpoints between the factory and their homes in nearby Nablus and Hebron. But the high rates of unemployment in the West Bank made it worth it, they said.

“We have no problems working here”, said one Palestinian employee, as others nodded in agreement. “The relations with the others are good, the pay is fine. But the way home is sometimes very long”.

One outside contractor who regularly visited the plant added: “It’s rare to see a company like this. Everyone sits together, works together. If you ask me, there should be a thousand SodaStreams in this area.”

Two key factors drive around 25,000 Palestinians employees to work in the settlements. The average daily wage earned by Palestinian workers in Israel and the settlements was more than double that of the West Bank private sector in 2012, according to a report by the International Labour Organisation. Unemployment rises to over 40 percent amongst 20-24 year olds in the West Bank.

However, critics say the jobs generated do not justify the settlement itself at Maale Adumim, which they say was created in the 1970s as an outpost into Palestinian territory to ensure access from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley.

Earlier this week, SodaStream’s chief executive, Daniel Birnbaum, said he would “never” have built the plant there in the first place had he known the controversy it might attract. But despite it being a “pain the ass”, he said he had no intentions to shut it.

“We will not throw our employees under the bus to promote anyone’s political agenda,” he said.

Yonah Lloyd, president of SodaStream, describes the atmosphere in the plant as “very harmonious”.

“We believe what we’ve accomplished by bringing together all kinds of people to work together, break bread together at lunch, and at company events at the beach, is a dream,” he told The Telegraph.

Several of the SodaStream employees interviewed point to the schism between politics and their everyday lives in terms of relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

“It’s only segregated at the top level, between the Israeli and the Palestinian governments”, says an Arab cook from East Jerusalem working at the SodaStream canteen.

“The politicians, they make all kinds of a mess between Jews and Arabs. But the people here, the Palestinians and Israelis, they are working together, they talk to each other, there’s no problem. But at the political level, there are many issues.”

The cook, who asked not to be named, refers to the case of Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi.

“You know the story of one Israeli and one Palestinian, both from Jerusalem, both cooks?", he asked.

"They never met in Jerusalem, but both went to London, both started making falafel and humous, met each other and became partners. It’s possible in London but difficult here, because of the politicians”, the cook says.

A Palestinian worker from East Jerusalem is waiting at the bus stop, talking into his mobile phone. “I like working here. The relations between people are good, what can I say?”

You know what the problem is and how to sort it, but that means dealing with the Jews and putting aside the Koran. Stop all acts of belligerence and attacks on Israel, sit down and negotiate a solution that is agreeable to all and see the place flourish. Keep on as you are and see the place become a prison camp with a Jewish presence for ever

 

[Phoenall]

Very odd that someone who seems to care about integration and understanding between peoples would build a factory in Occupied Territory on possibly stolen land.

Hey they can always pull it down and lay off all the muslim workers, then build the plant inside Israel and the world can blame you for the apartheid you have set up. You are so fixated on your hatred for all things Jewish that you would rather see all those Palestinians made unemployed and destitute than see a Sodastream factory in Palestine.

Go and take a long hard look at yourself

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The factory is in Area C and the land is not stolen.

 

[Victory67]

The factory is in Area C and the land is not stolen.

A good 1/3rd of Maale Adumim was taken from Arab land owners for military purposes.

The land is now a civilian settlement. This violates the 4th Geneva Conventions.

 

[Victory67]

Hey they can always pull it down and lay off all the muslim workers, then build the plant inside Israel and the world can blame you for the apartheid you have set up. You are so fixated on your hatred for all things Jewish that you would rather see all those Palestinians made unemployed and destitute than see a Sodastream factory in Palestine.

Go and take a long hard look at yourself

I am sure many Afrikaners owned companies that relied upon black labor during the days of Apartheid. This meant that a boycott of South Africa would hurt some black people. It was a neccessary and unfortunate sacrifice that had to be made in order to achieve a greater good. The same logic applies to companies that operate in the settlements.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The factory is in Area C and the land is not stolen.

A good 1/3rd of Maale Adumim was taken from Arab land owners for military purposes.

The land is now a civilian settlement. This violates the 4th Geneva Conventions.

Peace Now initially claimed that 86.4% of Ma'ale Adumim was privately owned Palestinian land, basing the figure on data leaked from a government report.[14][15] After Peace Now petitioned the Israeli courts to have the official data released, the group revised the figure to 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land. Israel maintains that Maale Adumin was built on "state lands," or areas not registered in anyone's name, and that no private property was being seized for building.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (article 49), which prohibits an occupying power transferring citizens from its own territory to occupied territory. Israel maintains that international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the West Bank because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place

 

[Shaarona]

Land ownership[edit]





Children's park overlooking Judean Desert, Ma'ale Adumim
Peace Now initially claimed that 86.4% of Ma'ale Adumim was privately owned Palestinian land, basing the figure on data leaked from a government report.[14][15] After Peace Now petitioned the Israeli courts to have the official data released, the group revised the figure to 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land. Israel maintains that Maale Adumin was built on "state lands," or areas not registered in anyone's name, and that no private property was being seized for building. [15] Palestinians claim lands from the villages of Abu Dis, al-Eizariya, Al-Issawiya, At-Tur and 'Anata were expropriated for building in Ma'aleh Adumim.[16]

Robert Eisenman wrote that under Islamic land law, the land in question was categorized as arazi mewat, or "dead lands".[17] However, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, "The expropriation procedure used in Ma'ale Adummim is unprecedented in the settlement enterprise.

Expropriation of land for settlement purposes is forbidden, not only under international law but also according to the long-standing, official position of Israeli governments.

Most settlements were built on area that was declared state land or on land that was requisitioned - ostensibly temporarily - for military purposes. It appears that in Ma'ale Adummim, the government decided to permanently expropriate the land because it viewed the area as an integral part of Jerusalem that would forever remain under Israeli control."[18]

wiki

 

[Victory67]

Peace Now initially claimed that 86.4% of Ma'ale Adumim was privately owned Palestinian land, basing the figure on data leaked from a government report.[14][15] After Peace Now petitioned the Israeli courts to have the official data released, the group revised the figure to 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land. Israel maintains that Maale Adumin was built on "state lands," or areas not registered in anyone's name, and that no private property was being seized for building.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (article 49), which prohibits an occupying power transferring citizens from its own territory to occupied territory. Israel maintains that international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the West Bank because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place

Peace Now shows that in the span of one year, the Israeli government changed its classification of Maale Adumim from mostly private land to mostly state land.

I would love to see evidence that Maale Adumim purchased all of this land from the Arab owner over the span of one year.

As to the West Bank and the 4th Geneva Conventions, land is considered Occupied if it was conquered in a war by one of the warring parties. Whether or not the land had been legally annexed by its former controller is irrelevent. The West Bank was Occupied land when Jordan controlled it and now it is Occupied land under Israeli control. And since it is Occupied land it is covered by the protections for Occupied Territories set forth in the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel has committed to follow.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Peace Now initially claimed that 86.4% of Ma'ale Adumim was privately owned Palestinian land, basing the figure on data leaked from a government report.[14][15] After Peace Now petitioned the Israeli courts to have the official data released, the group revised the figure to 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land. Israel maintains that Maale Adumin was built on "state lands," or areas not registered in anyone's name, and that no private property was being seized for building.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (article 49), which prohibits an occupying power transferring citizens from its own territory to occupied territory. Israel maintains that international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the West Bank because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place

Peace Now shows that in the span of one year, the Israeli government changed its classification of Maale Adumim from mostly private land to mostly state land.

I would love to see evidence that Maale Adumim purchased all of this land from the Arab owner over the span of one year.

As to the West Bank and the 4th Geneva Conventions, land is considered Occupied if it was conquered in a war by one of the warring parties. Whether or not the land had been legally annexed by its former controller is irrelevent. The West Bank was Occupied land when Jordan controlled it and now it is Occupied land under Israeli control. And since it is Occupied land it is covered by the protections for Occupied Territories set forth in the 4th Geneva Conventions which Israel has committed to follow.

There you go with that 4th Geneva Convention malarky again. I already disproved it to you on other boards, but you are spamming all the boards with that lie.

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel

 

[Victory67]

There you go with that 4th Geneva Convention malarky again. I already disproved it to you on other boards, but you are spamming all the boards with that lie.

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel

I have clearly stated in plain English why the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank. You have failed to counter my argument with anything of substance. All you provide is a link to some unknown website by some unknown group.

Are you going to tell us why you believe the 4th Geneva Conventions doesn't cover the West Bank?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

There you go with that 4th Geneva Convention malarky again. I already disproved it to you on other boards, but you are spamming all the boards with that lie.

Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel

I have clearly stated in plain English why the 4th Geneva Conventions covers the West Bank. You have failed to counter my argument with anything of substance. All you provide is a link to some unknown website by some unknown group.

Are you going to tell us why you believe the 4th Geneva Conventions doesn't cover the West Bank?

Yes, and here are the facts as I keep having to put out to you Mr Victory for the Jews in 67:

Many pro-Palestine activists and members of the international community falsely have claimed that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.

For example, a UN Human Rights Council panel has declared that Israel building Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Christine Chanet, the French judge who headed this U.N. inquiry, asserted, “To transfer its own population into an occupied territory is prohibited because it is an obstacle to the exercise of the right to self-determination.” Yet any careful examination of international law would establish that Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem, are not occupied territories and that the Geneva Convention spoke of forced transfers, such as what the Nazis did, not the voluntary transfers that Israel engages in.

Firstly, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was drafted following the Second World War, during which time millions of people were deported, displaced and massacred. In the case of the Jews and Gypsies, outright genocide was committed. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was created in order to prevent a repeat of what happened in Europe under the malaise aggression of Nazism. For this reason, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The International Commission of the Red Cross clarified this article in 1958 by asserting, “It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.” This establishes the point that Article 49 of the Geneva Convention refers to forced transfers of population that result in endangering a conquered nations’ existence, not voluntary settlement to open areas, even for cases when an occupation does indeed take place.

Yet, there is a strong legal case to be made that the term occupation does not even apply to Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem. Article 2 of the Geneva Convention has made clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to two or more high contradicting parties, which is not the case at hand since the international community never recognized Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria.
Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.

Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

 

[Victory67]

Yes, and here are the facts as I keep having to put out to you Mr Victory for the Jews in 67:

Many pro-Palestine activists and members of the international community falsely have claimed that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.

For example, a UN Human Rights Council panel has declared that Israel building Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Christine Chanet, the French judge who headed this U.N. inquiry, asserted, “To transfer its own population into an occupied territory is prohibited because it is an obstacle to the exercise of the right to self-determination.” Yet any careful examination of international law would establish that Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem, are not occupied territories and that the Geneva Convention spoke of forced transfers, such as what the Nazis did, not the voluntary transfers that Israel engages in.

Firstly, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was drafted following the Second World War, during which time millions of people were deported, displaced and massacred. In the case of the Jews and Gypsies, outright genocide was committed. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was created in order to prevent a repeat of what happened in Europe under the malaise aggression of Nazism. For this reason, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The International Commission of the Red Cross clarified this article in 1958 by asserting, “It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.” This establishes the point that Article 49 of the Geneva Convention refers to forced transfers of population that result in endangering a conquered nations’ existence, not voluntary settlement to open areas, even for cases when an occupation does indeed take place.

Yet, there is a strong legal case to be made that the term occupation does not even apply to Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem. Article 2 of the Geneva Convention has made clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to two or more high contradicting parties, which is not the case at hand since the international community never recognized Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria.
Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.

Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

Acoording to some Israelis in this forum, the Mandate for Palestine terminated in 1949 after the British left Palestine and the State of Israel was recognized by the UN. They also argue that Mandate was terminated cause they acknowledge that the Mandate makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine, and these Israelis don't believe Israel should be bound by any such conditions.

So which is it? Is the Mandate and all of its regulations and conditions still valid or not? You all need to make up your minds on this issue.

As to the San Remo Conference, it never says that ALL of Palestine will be turned into a Jewish state. Its also says that the settlement of Jews in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state is conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine.

You keep ignoring this. I wonder why.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Yes, and here are the facts as I keep having to put out to you Mr Victory for the Jews in 67:

Many pro-Palestine activists and members of the international community falsely have claimed that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.

For example, a UN Human Rights Council panel has declared that Israel building Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Christine Chanet, the French judge who headed this U.N. inquiry, asserted, “To transfer its own population into an occupied territory is prohibited because it is an obstacle to the exercise of the right to self-determination.” Yet any careful examination of international law would establish that Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem, are not occupied territories and that the Geneva Convention spoke of forced transfers, such as what the Nazis did, not the voluntary transfers that Israel engages in.

Firstly, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was drafted following the Second World War, during which time millions of people were deported, displaced and massacred. In the case of the Jews and Gypsies, outright genocide was committed. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was created in order to prevent a repeat of what happened in Europe under the malaise aggression of Nazism. For this reason, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The International Commission of the Red Cross clarified this article in 1958 by asserting, “It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.” This establishes the point that Article 49 of the Geneva Convention refers to forced transfers of population that result in endangering a conquered nations’ existence, not voluntary settlement to open areas, even for cases when an occupation does indeed take place.

Yet, there is a strong legal case to be made that the term occupation does not even apply to Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem. Article 2 of the Geneva Convention has made clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to two or more high contradicting parties, which is not the case at hand since the international community never recognized Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria.
Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.

Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

Acoording to some Israelis in this forum, the Mandate for Palestine terminated in 1949 after the British left Palestine and the State of Israel was recognized by the UN. They also argue that Mandate was terminated cause they acknowledge that the Mandate makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine, and these Israelis don't believe Israel should be bound by any such conditions.

So which is it? Is the Mandate and all of its regulations and conditions still valid or not? You all need to make up your minds on this issue.

You have a problem with the word 'Mandate' don't you.
The Mandate for Palestine did end, but the San Remo Conference's Mandate hasn't ended, and the Jewish people's rights to Israel including the area known as the West Bank is protected in Law in Article 80 of the San Remo Mandate.

As to the San Remo Conference, it never says that ALL of Palestine will be turned into a Jewish state.

Didn't it? Show me where it never said all of Palestine would be a Jewish state.

It also says that the settlement of Jews in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state is conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine.

You keep ignoring this. I wonder why.

Israeli Arabs/Christians/Catholics/Mormons/Treehuggers etc are given full respect and their religious and civil rights are protected. It is those in Palestinian Authority controlled areas and of course Gaza that are at risk of their civil and religious rights being violated.

 

[Victory67]

You have a problem with the word 'Mandate' don't you.
The Mandate for Palestine did end, but the San Remo Conference's Mandate hasn't ended, and the Jewish people's rights to Israel including the area known as the West Bank is protected in Law in Article 80 of the San Remo Mandate....

what evidence do you have that the San Remo Conference didn't end?

...Didn't it? Show me where it never said all of Palestine would be a Jewish state....

No where in the San Remo Conference does it state that all of Palestine shall be used as a Jewish homeland. Such a claim is mere fantasy.

...Israeli Arabs/Christians/Catholics/Mormons/Treehuggers etc are given full respect and their religious and civil rights are protected. It is those in Palestinian Authority controlled areas and of course Gaza that are at risk of their civil and religious rights being violated.

Israel has been confiscating Arab private land in the West Bank to be used for Israeli settlements from 1967 to 1979. This is illegal and violates the 4th GC. According to the 4th GC, private land can only be confiscated to be used for military purposes. The Israeli Supreme Court in 1979 decided that it is illegal for Israel to confiscate private land for military purposes and then turn it into civilian settlements.

Since then Israel has been confiscating Arab private land and converting it into State land, but according to the 4th GC state land in Occupied Territory can only be used by the Occupier for the good of all peoples in the territory, and Israel has been using this land just for Israeli settlements, roads for the settlements, and other settlement infrastructure.

All of these policies that discriminate against Arabs in favor of the Israelis, clearly violate the San Remo Conference's condition that non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine must be protected.

 

[MHunterB]

"Acoording to some Israelis in this forum, the Mandate for Palestine terminated in 1949 after the British left Palestine and the State of Israel was recognized by the UN. They also argue that Mandate was terminated cause they acknowledge that the Mandate makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine, and these Israelis don't believe Israel should be bound by any such conditions."

Please provide direct quotes from this site to substantiate your allegations above. You appear to be 'referencing' something which I didn't know had occurred....

I'd like to see the actual posts to which you refer. Thank you.

 

[Victory67]

"Acoording to some Israelis in this forum, the Mandate for Palestine terminated in 1949 after the British left Palestine and the State of Israel was recognized by the UN. They also argue that Mandate was terminated cause they acknowledge that the Mandate makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine, and these Israelis don't believe Israel should be bound by any such conditions."

Please provide direct quotes from this site to substantiate your allegations above. You appear to be 'referencing' something which I didn't know had occurred....

I'd like to see the actual posts to which you refer. Thank you.

Members Rocco and Phoenall believe that the Mandate for Palestine and the San Remo Conference have expired. Rocco believes this because he appears to be an astute student of international law and Phoenall believes this because he doesn't want Israel to be bound by the protection set forth for non-Jewish rights in these agreements.